SHAREMILKING CLAIM

Waikato Times, Volume 116, Issue 19364, 18 September 1934, Page 5

SHAREMILKING CLAIM

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. MAGISTRATE’S COURT. In the Ilagistrate’s Court, Hamilton, before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., a share-milker, of Ngatea, Lewis Rowland Hope, claimed from Lcmiel Victor Bellingham, farmer, of Taupiri, £25 16s 6d, which he held was due under a share-milking agreement from June 1 to September 9 last year. Plaintiff was represented by Mr ,T. C. Taylor and defendant by Mr A. L. Tompkins. Defendant, Bellingham, admitted the items in the claim for £25 16s 6d, but held there was a set-off which extinguished this amount. The defendant's evidence was heard first, as his claim was an affirmative one. The Items for which deduction was claimed were manure (£l3 ss), being portion of tho annual amount, of £SO contributed by the share-milker for manure, £l2 for four cows which were lost through mammitis, £3 3s for the loss of a calf, and other small Items for repairs. It. was contended by Mr Tompkins that the share-milker had to pay a proportionate part, for manure, although the agreement did not go the full time. Further, that under the agreement the share-milker was liable to contribute £3 each for the cows lost through mammitis. Evidence for Defendant. Evidence was given by Bellingham in support of his claim and also by Charles Scott, who testified that cows producing between 300 and 4001 b. butterfat per annum could not he badly affected by mammitis. and that (he cows lost through mammitis had previously done this total and that they must have become affected while Hope had them. Lewis Rowland Hope, in evidence, staled that he had received no benefit from the manure and did not. consider therefore that, he should assume any liability in that, direction. In respect of the cows affected with mnmmitls lie held that they were In that condition when lie took over. lie further denied liability for Hie other Items. Harold Sydney Stevens, of Te Aroha, who bad previously been sbaremllkiug on Mr Bellingham's property, supported the evidence of plaintiff, Hope. Mr Taylor contended that the annual amount payable for manure was not apporlionable and Hint iiis client s ].ould not be called upon lo make any contribution, lie further claimed that Hie charge made for the loss of cows through mammitis could not he sustained. unless i I was proved lha I it was due to Hope's negligence, and that, had not been proved. Judgment, was entered for defendant, with costs £3 6s against plaintiff.