FARMING DISPUTE.

Waikato Times, Volume 100, Issue 16749, 16 March 1926, Page 9

FARMING DISPUTE.

HAMILTON AUCTIONEER SUED. misunderstanding adjusted. ‘'Neither my friend nor T doubt the other party’s honesty in the matter, stated counsel during the hearing of a rattier involved civil claim at the Hamilton Court yesterday. The matter in dispute was the balance of payments allegedly due a farm manager, or share,milker, as his late employer, the defendant, regarded him. No written agreement was eve.r drawn up between the parties, and counsel in making the foregoing remark evidently regarded the dispute as nothing more than a misunderstanding between them. The case In question, which was opened last Tuesday, was the claim for £193 15s Id, balance of payments allegedly due in his capacity as manager of defendant’s farm at Hinucra made by Thomas Hastie, farmer, of Pukekohc, against his former employer, George W. Vercoc, farmer and auctioneer, Hamilton. Portion of the claim was admitted by defendant, who also' Pled a counter-claim against llastie for grazing. Mr .T. Hogbcn (Auckland) presented plaintiff’s side of the case, Mr C. L. Mac Diarmid watching defendant’s interests.

When the hearing of the case was resumed yesterday afternoon defendant was subjected to a lengthy crossexamination by Mr Hogbcn as to the terms upon which he, employed plaintiff. He stated in reply to counsel that he regarded plaintiff really as a sharemilker. He thought that it was tlio duty of the sharemilkcr to drive stock, to grow food for the dairy cattle, and to do other similar work associated with the practical management of the farm.

Addressing the Court on behalf of defendant, Mr Mac Diarmid alleged that hut for certain friction which had occurred between the parties neither the claim nor the counterclaim would have come before the Court. Counsel criticised many of the items in plaintiff's claim, maintaining ttiat defendant had given his evidence in a straightforward manner and that he had been unshaken in cross-examination.

In regard to most of the smaller items, Mr Mac Diarmid maintained that plaintiff would never have made them but for the trouble that occurred between the parties. In short., what items in the claim did not refer to work which it was plaintiff’s duty to do and for which therefore ho should not be paid anything extra, referred to work done by Hastic's son, whom defendant fully reimbursed. In support of the counter-claim for £2O, Mr MacDiramid contended that llastie had grazed a considerable number of sheep on the property for his own profit. This slock was eating Vereoe’s feed, and he should therefore ho recompensed.

For plaintiff Mr Hogbcn argued that Ilaslio had given a more definite version of Hie terms of Ihc agreement than had defendant, while his statements were more consistent. Counsel stressed the point that. defendant had previously paid llastie at the rate of Is Gd an hour for work done outside his duties as a sharemilkcr, which was virtually an admission of liability in the present case. Reviewing the evidence, His Worship said that the terms of plaintiff’s employment clearly embraced something further than the mere milking of the cows and the additional work for which Hastie was claiming came within the scope of his duties. Gauging the credibility of the parties by their demeanour in the witness-box and tlic clarity with which they gave their evidence, the Magistrate said that ho preferred to believe the statement, of the defendant that no arrangement was made for the payment of plaintiff of the rale of Is Gd an hour for additional work done.

Judgment, was therefore given plaintiff only for tlio amount admitted by defendant, 1158 17s 7d, with costs as per scale. tn regard io the counter-claim, His Worship held that there was no contract as to grazing, and therefore gave judgment for ilaslic under this heading.