Potato Digging and Picking.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XIV, Issue 65, 25 October 1911, Page 1

Potato Digging and Picking.

WILLOWBRIDGE NEIGHBOURS AT LAW."

WAS THERE A SPECIFIC CONTRACT?

In the Magistrate's Court at Waimate yesterday, be/ore Mr Trios. Hutchison, S.M., Matthew Benjamin Peck and Georg« Alban Peck (Mr Hamilton) claimed from William Campbell (Mr Campbell, Tiniaru), £27 14s 3d for digging and gathering 676 sacks of potatoes at 8d table and 7d seed per bag. There was a paddock of 20 acres, and plaintiffs, after working with their digger machine and gang for four days, left the -job, owing, as they alleged, to defendant's being so irritable with plaintiffs and their men that they could not and WGuld not go on. Defendant counterclaimed for £!i 3s 6d for loss of market through delay caused by breach of contract, through careless sorting, and through loss of potatoes through being left out in the paddock and becoming frosted. George Alban Peck, giving evidence, said the agreement between Campbell and witness was to dig potatoes at 7d for small and 8d for table per bag. Defenadnt said he wanted the whole paddock dug, but witness refused to take the lot on, as he did not know what might happen, causing him to pull out. He would not take a contract to dig any man's paddock right out. There was no contract for quantity or time. It was machine digging, and they began on 2nd May. but thev could not give Campbell satisfaction. He complained to witness* of the classifying, also to the men, so that the men got «ut of sorts, and on the fourth day refused to work. The men were on by the hour, and Campbell complained of the gathering, eaying that they were leaving too many on the ground. The crop was a heavy one, but prolific in smal

ones, and the fine tilth of ,the soil caused some to get covered over. The uaual practice was to leave the very small potatoes on the ground. When Campbell could not be satisfiei he offered to dig the potatoes by the acre with the machine, leaving the defendant to contract with the men independently for the picking up. Heard defendant actually offer the men 5d per bag to pick up on owner's account direct, but th 9 men refused. On the fifth day they did not go back to the field. Left no potatoes on the ground worth picking up, and defendant made no objection to his leaving, at the time. Last season "witness dug and gathered 9900 bags, and had no complaints from anyone else. About six weeksago defendant invited him to his house for the purpose of having a "square-up" and on that occasion de-

fendant demanded a return of £ls for

losss through potatoes being frosted and missing the boat. He declined to consent.

Cross-examined: Admitted sending a bill for 8d per sack all round. This meant that at first witness was stick-

ling for 8d all round, and that subsequently they arrived atßd'and 7d<

there were 107 sacks of seed out of 676 bags in all. Defendant urged witness to raise the standard of the table

potatoes, and witness agreed to try and improve the sample, but defendant even then was not satisfied. He bad never in any other case gone into

a man's paddock and gone away again without finishing the field, This was the first of such experiences. The potatoes were ripe and fit for digging.

Matthew 6. Feck, father of the last witness, and one of the plaintiffs, said he was engaged in Campbell's paddock sewing the bags. Defendant complained several times to witness of the men leaving potatoes on the ground. The ground was so dusty that it was impossible to pick all the potatoes up.

Those left behind were very small, like marbles. Defendant complained continually also to the a en, so that they went against him and their work, and refused to go on. On the fourth day defendant offered witness 8d if he would dig the whole paddoek. At that time Ireland, the Oamaru flour miller, was offering £3 15s for prime table potatoes. The contra items "purchase of straw stack to cover potatoes" and "picking over 676 sacks" had nothing to do with plaintiffs, as other people had to cover and pick uver their potatoes. Edward Spencer, teamster, Stoney Creek, said he was one of Peek's gang

at the time of Campbell's job, Defendant wrangled with all the men,

which he had no right to do, To witness he Baid "You're not worth your

;ucker" and "I would like to order

you out of the paddock." At the dinner hour on the fourth day he told the men generally- that there was not

a man among them worth bis salt, and that the sooner they were all out of the paddock the better he would be pleased. The men replied that they would dig no more for him, bat would

clean up what they had dug. There was no ground for his complaints. All the email potatoes that were left

in the dust afterwards would not anr.ount to six bags altogether, The

custom was for the farmer to harrow

the ground after the digging and picking, in order that the sun and frost might get atjtho remnants and pre-

vent their growing next year, He complained to Mr Feck, • who replied that it was just as well to put up with the grumbling. Witness said "Al-

right; bat we won't put up with much

more of it."

William Duncan, farmer, Nukuroa, said Mr Peck made a satisfactory job of digging his paddock last season, which adjoined Mr Campbell's crop.

Counsel for defendant contended ;bat plaintiffs should have dag the

whole 2C acres, and that the 676 sacks dug wen so badly sorted that they bad all to be picked over again, and

, -for this a counter claim was made at per sack, less* 100 bags sold before they were picked over. Then tcere was a counter item for potatoes left on the ground and frosted. If it had not been for the careless sorting of the crop, his client would not have missed his contract to supply Auckland consignees, for by the time the potatoes could.be sorted over the market had gone down. The Magistrate feared that the Pecks could not be held lesponsible for Joss through breach of a delivery contract that they knew nothing. about. The point was argued for some I time.

[ William John Campbell, farmer, Willowbridge, said he arranged with Mr Pevk to dig and pick 20 acres of potatoes, to make two samples—table and seed—and to make a good job. He had had two seasons' experience of potato growing, and anything two

inches and over in diameter was a

table potato, He did not fir.d fault with the way Peck was doing the work. The seed was all mixed up with the table potatoes. He asked Mr George Peck to try and make a better sample if he could. Of the 70 tons dug, he sold 10 tons as table potatoes, and the remainder were undersized. If the diggers had kept on, they would have come upon better potatoes.

Cross-examined: He afterwards got , the remainder of the potatoes dug by the Parkers, 6nd the paddock yielded 12 tons to the acre. Alexander Duncan bi id he heard defendant tell Peck that if he pulled out of the paddock without finishing the job he would not get paid for what he had dug. He saw the paddock afUr the pickers had been over it, and he was satisfied they had gathered all the potatoes that could be seen. David Campbell, labourer, Willowbridge, brother of defendant, also ! gave evidence. The Magistrate said it was a claim under an open contract for payment for so many bags at so much per bag. Defendant net up by counter-claim that there was a specific contract for the harvesting of a definite area, viz., 20 acres, at so much per bag,and that, by not fulfilling, plaintiffs had caused him damage. The question at the root of the case was whether or rot

there was this specific agreement set up by defendant. If there was no such contract, then all the subsidiary question raised by the counter-claim fell to the ground. Plaintiffs set up that theirs was a divisible contract—that they could start in at a rate,and knock off where and when they liked. He must find that the probabilities aiid the surrounding circumstances strongly met the plaintiffs' own view. In the first place, defendant had acted as a master would act. He spoke to

the men about their work, and he (the Magistrate) was not sure that he had not a right to interfere in the interests of a classification to his liking, He spoke not only to the contractors, but to the men. Then, when they went away and left the job, he took the matter into his own hands and put on another gang to rectify what he considered the deficiencies of the work. This showed that the contract was not a specific contract. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to recover the amount of their clai-n £27 14s 3d, and defendant would fail of his counterclaim. Costs amouning to £5 lis 3d were allowed to the plaintiffs on the claim. v