SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12175, 26 November 1917, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

+ CIVIL SESSION. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Deiv niston.') A MILKING TRANSACTION. At the. Supreme Court this morning, before his Honor Mr-Justice Denniston, Thomas Arthur Fan ell (Mr Sargent'i. farmer, of Christehurch, proceeded against Lawrence Wilson (Mr Raymond, K.C., with him Mr Men res), farmer, of Teddington, for alleged breach of agreement. Defendant counter-claimed for negligence. The statement of claim set out that plaintiff was a farm manager and defendant the owner of certain fan>: lands at Teddington, as well as of certain stock. On July 27, 1916. plaintiff entered into a milking agreement i\ith defendant, by which defendant agreed to provide necessary labour in connection with milking a herd of 140 cows, for separating the cream, feeding, etc. The plaintiff was to be paid one-third of the proceeds of sale i f the cream, calves and pigs, and one* third of the value of all calves and pigs unsold at the termination of the. agreement. Defendant was to take two-thirds of the proceeds. Plaintiff commenced his duties on or about August 7, 1916, and on December 10. 1916, he received a- letter' from de« fendant demanding his withdrawal from the farm by a certain date. The agreement was to hold until the end of the milking season in 1917. Plaintiff asked for an order of the Court by which the pigs and calres should be, sold and accounts taken; so that the money due to plaintiff should be. ascertained, and that, besides, plaintiff should be awarded £SO damages for breach of agreement, together with costs and reimbursement*? of the action; in lieu thereof several alternatives were, suggested, including one of an award of £2oo for breach of agreement, besides costs of the action. The statement of defence denied that an agreement had been entered into as stated- The terms, it was stated, were that- defendant: was to provide lands and grazing, sheds, etc. Plaintiff was to pay for labour and was to find bis own lodgings. Plaintiff was to discharge certain duties, which it was claimed he had neglected, whereby the proper amount of cream and number of calves and pigs were much less than they should have been. Defendant claimed that his property had been wasted and destroyed. Plaintiff had been informed of his neglect, and had finally been discharged. Defendant claimed £422 for general loss, and also £37 lis 6d, balance of money due to him in money transaction accounts.

After part of plaintiff's evidence had been taken it was agreed, by consent, that all questions should be referred to the Registrar, his derision on nil questions of fact to be final. The Registrar was empowered to make all inquiries, to take any accounts he mar think necessary, and to report to the Court.