FARMER TO PAY

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 4, Issue 154, 12 September 1941, Page 5

FARMER TO PAY

SHAREMILKER'S SUCCESSFUL CLAIM

MAGISTRATE'S SHARP COMMENT

"If by keeping quiet the defendant hoped to get the benefit of the use of the tractor he has only himself to blame if unnecessary use was made of the machine. The position was brought about by hils own greed" tersely commented Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., when giving judgment in favour of John L. Harris, sharemilker, against Frederick William Mayo, of Auckland, and owner of a farm at Otakiri. His Worship added that he had l no doubt that the defendant knew the plaintiff intended purchasing a tractor and' is not voibing objection, acquiesced. He added* that to take all the profit and' allow plaintiff to bear all the costs appeared to be the defendant's sense of fair play.

The sharemilker claimed £10 14s 6d for the use of the tractor, £21 Is for petrol consumed and £19 16s refund for deduction made from share of maize profits, the -deduction being made for plucking. The defence stated that £10 had been paid into court of tho last mentioned amount and this was accepted as settlement. Horses no Use J. L. Harris (Mr B. S. Barry) stated that on coanmencing work he had found the three horses old and Unsuitable for work, to the extent that he used his own pony for drawing the cream sledge. He had told Mayo that he intended purchasing a tractor and had received no dissent, and having done so wrote asking for a suitable plough and the

use of a double furrow tractor plough had -been provided. He had cultivated 12 to 13 acres for maize, G acres for grass and disced and harrowed the pastures on the farm also using the machine for odd jobs, He could not have used the horses, for ploughing and Mr Mayo knew he was using the tractor. Witness staled that the whole of the petrol consumed had been for farm purposes.

To Mr Otley, for the defendant, he replied that he had inspected the farm prior to signing an agreement and had bought the tractor about three weeks after commencing. The purchase, he claimed, had been sanctioned by the owner, but 110 mention had been made of running costs and he had made no claim for these until after leaving the farm. Requests In another direction had not been met favourably and he and his partner had found it more satisfactory to purchase things themselves even to the extent of nails, staples and other material.

Mr Otley claimed that the plaintiff had never complained regarding the horses, had jmrchased the tractor without consent of the owner and not asked for a contribution for running expenses until lie had left the farm. ' Not Magistrate's Idea "That is not my idea of it," said His Worship, adding that the farm owner had supplied a tractor plough and thus must have by doing so agreed that the tractor be used. If the owner had not approved of the purchase or use of the tractor then he should have told the plaintiff to use the horses, stipulating that if he used a tractor then he did so at his own cost. "An owner cannot lure a share*milker into doing work and then .say he will not pay," he said. As with the nine acres of maize the owner had agreed to the man cultivating the land on a 50-50 basis,.deducted the whole cost of plucking the crop and yet denied his liability lo share in the cost of preparing the ground. No Request. In evidence Frederick William Miayo said he had not seen the tractor used, but had seen where work had been done, though it did not appear that a great deal had beers covered. He claimed that the horses were suitable for work, one being a really good horse. He had received no request regarding costs for the tractor and no complaint about the horses. He did recall the plaintiff saying he might buy a tractor, but had not known he had done so or agreed to its purchase, or use on his farm. To Mr Barry he said that he did not mind the plaintiff growing maize in any quantity so long as he did not neglect the herd and understood that they would share 50-50 as with another threfe acres.

(Continued in next column)

Unfair Division Mr Barry pointed out that the result of the maize had been a re-, ceipt of £52 16s, a division making £26 Bs. Yet the defendant had deducted from the plaintiff's share £19 16s for plucking. "That left him £6 12s for working the nine acres, ploughing, harrowing, planting and all his benzine —is that your idea of what is fair?" Defendant: Well, he had the stubble for the pigs. Mr Barry: Yes, and you receive half the profit from pigs I presume! Continuing under cross examina-1 tion the defendant said that he had received reports from his son on the neighbouring farm and had been told a tractor was being used . Mr Chas. F. Elvers stated that he had used the defendant's horses, and found one a good animal,, worth in his opinion £30. He said the amount of petrol used toi him appeared excessive. To Mi Barry he stated he had not seen the horses last winter and had not «ne of them for live or six years. His Worship then announced his decision giving judgment to the plaintiff for £39 16s 6d, with -costs £7 10s.