SHAREMILKER'S CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume 97, Issue 15895, 21 January 1924, Page 6

SHAREMILKER'S CASE.

ANOTHER TE AROHA ACTION. JUDGMENT FOR SHAREMILKER. At the Magistrate's Court, Te Aroha, on Thursday, before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., A. B. Chandler, sliarcmilke'r, Waitoa, sued A. J, Ballard, farmer, for £43 12s Bd, being balance of money due for work done from November 22, 1922, to Juno 30, 1923. The claim was based on the prodneof butter fat at 6d per lb —£23G Bs, less £lB4 0s Bd, less £8 14s 8d duo for electric power, being a balance of £43 12s 8d as claimed.

It was pointed out by Mr Gilchrist, fcounsel for; defendant,, that thje agreement provided that the plaintiff get one third of the monthly cheque as long as the price paid for butter fat did not exceed Is 6d per pound. He furthermore was to receive a minimum of ud per pound. That is, it buttter foa fell below Is 3d per pound, the defendant's monthly share had to be brought up to 5d per pound. The agreement said "monthly cheques," and could not mean anythins else, and a third of Ihc "monthly cheque' 'is all lie was entitled to and no part of flic final bonus. The Magistrate: The agreement shows mat the plaintiff's share is to he made up to at least ud per pound, but not to go above Cd. If the month !y cheque shows that one third is less thin 5d it is to be made up to sd. Mr Gilchrist: The question of bonus is n«)t to come into the payments.

Mr Carroll (for plaintiff) considered that the bonus must ba considered: His client must not be victimised by ihe method or delay in payment of the bonus by a dairy company. The amount to be paid was one third of the amount received by the dairy farmer.

The Magistrate said he was of opinion that it was contemplated that When the agreement was made thero were other moneys coming beside the regular monthly payments, and if there was anything to be made up. it was to be made up out of those moneys. The bonus had to be taken into consideration. This was his ruling on that point. After much evidence was advanced, the Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for £37 lis 4d with costs.