FARM MISMANAGED?

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 111, 13 May 1931, Page 6

FARM MISMANAGED?

CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM WE.AKINA SHAKE-MILKING CASE Proceedings were taken at a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Wanganui yesterday before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., by G. Gill (Mr Clinkard) against M. Paki (Mr Currie), for breach of contract while share-milking and for the recovery of £2 10s 6d. Plaintiff was engaged share-milking for the 1930-31 season, and he alleged that the agreement was terminated without reason. He claimed £33 3s; 1 viz.. £6 13s for share of milk. £l 10s for share of pigs, general damages through loss due to termination of contract £35. Defendant counter-claimed for the amount of £2l 16s sd, which included goods £l. 8s sd. rent £2 6s 6d, grazing £3 Is 6d, dado removed from house £1 10s. loss to value of herd £lO. Plaintiff said he had no agreement in writing. He carried out the usual routine about the farm in connection with share-milking. He disputed various goods items charged to him. He did not agree to pay for grazing for a horse. The value of the dado be considered was 7s. To Mr Currie: He admitted receiving a letter from J. Marumaru in November intimating that defendant was not satisfied with the way the farm was managed. There was one horse on the farm he would not drive because it would go backwards instead of forward. It was not his fault that one cow died. The bull got out on to the road, but he was not to blame because he had not the material to repair the fences. For Hie defence, J. Marumaru said he made the arrangement on behalf of Mrs Paki. He wrote later to Gill stating that Mrs Paki was not satisfied with the working of the farm. Mrs Paki said that plaintiff was frightened of the horses and her boy had to assist him. The fences were not kept in repair. When she spoke to him about this he replied that he had finished and that she could get someone else to do the work. The grazing claim was for a foal plaintiff had given to witness; he had then taken it away when he left. The dado was only lent to plaintiff’s wife. O. Tiki said that he saw pigs running over tho farm out of their paddock; also strange cattle on the place Plaintiff’s ploughing whs not up to standard. Decision was reserved pending the production of certain documents.