SHAREMILKING CASE

Waikato Times, Volume 95, Issue 14949, 20 May 1922, Page 5

SHAREMILKING CASE

A TATUANUI DISPUTE. A case of unusual interest to sharemilkers was heard before Mr J. H. Salmond, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court, Morrinsville, yesterday, when A. J. Cannon (Mr Northcroft) claimed £45 due to him in respect to calves. F. Klaus (Mr McGregor), admitting the claim, counterclaimed £SOO damages due to alleged neglect in the carrying out of the agreement.

The counter-claim proceedings occupied the whole day. After hearing evidence the magistrate remarked that sharemilking agreements always presented difficulties, and that in such cases there should be a certain amount of give and take. Reasonableness , should always be exercised between the parties, he .said, for the reason that at some time during the season a breach of terms giving a fight to sue for such breach invariably must occur. In this case he referred to the fact that both owner and sharemilker were residing on the farm, and that therefore defendant was under the eye of claimant. He referred to the manner in which the parties communicated with each other, through Ihe medium of a third person, which course was taken from the early days of the -contract. The sending of notes, etc., in this way was absurd. Moreover there was the right to terminate by one month’s notice in writing. No real protest was made. A man injured must exercise his legal remedy promptly and to achieve this end he should have at an earlier date terminated s the agreement and sued for damages, if any. Counsel for the plaintiff held that should this course have been adopted the herds would have been thrown on plaintiff’s hands during the season, which could not be taken into account for the Reason that .plaintiff was at one time prepared to ,give Cannon such notice. Referring to the claim, which he considered of a preposterous nature, he expressed the opinion that Mr McGregor, had he not wished to have had the counter-claim filed in time, would have presented it in a more reasonable form. That the plaintiff was prepared to reduce his claim from £930 to £SOO to bring it within jurisdiction of the court did not go to prove the bona fides of the claim. Klaus’ evidence, he said, was wild and a mere expression of opinion and unfounded. Dealing with the items of the claim His Worship remarked that if Klaus put so much weight on testing and intended to have the testing carried out as 1 stipulated ,he should not have allowed the matter to have drifted on as it had. Cannon, it appeared, was not aware, when he commenced his duties, of the testing plant. Dealing with the alleged neglect in “the service on cows,” it appeared that Cannon was told that the cows were to be served in the yard which Cannon objected to. The parties, it was concluded, drifted into a new arrangement by which the bulls were taken to the herd. The extraordinary part of Klaus’ action is that he appears to have agreed to that arrangement. No strenuous efforts —in fact none whatever —appear to have been made. Klaus appeared to be more willing to leave the whole management to Cannon. Such non-insistence, he considered, amounted to a waiver. Re"failure to tend and care for the herd,” resulting in cows coming in with udder troubles, His Worship said he couid not overlook the fact that it is the most common experience of all farmers in the Waikato to suffer such trouble. He was of the opinion that as only four cows suffered (there were over 100 in the herd) it was an extremely low proportion, and that defendant could not be held responsible for these. Speaking upon the claim in respect to thfe failure to do farmwork as required, he expressed the opinion that a large amount of work had been done by defendant. The question was whether or not Cannon had time for further work. The evidence, he said, showed that top dressing was done in either the spring or the fall. In February Cannon was instructed to obtain a machine. This he went to procure, but it was found to be unavailable, and when available two days later, was broken down. lienee there was’no disobedience. His Worship suggested that now was the proper time for this work. Other claims were: Failure to drench, renewals, pigs, grazing of horses (His Worship casting serious doubts on the bona fides of this 'for the reason that Cannon was apparently never told that he would be charged for grazing his ponies. In plaintiff’s impossible evidence he stated that he did not know of the two ponies of defendant being there), and depreciation (plaintiff claiming £lO, His Worship considering that this amount was a very reasonable depreciation for 17 months use). His Worship entered judgment for the defendant. The total costs amounted to £32.