POSSESSION OF HOUSE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 7, Issue 32, 10 December 1943, Page 5

POSSESSION OF HOUSE

SHAREMILKER'S ATTITUDE

farmer's cask upheld

The action of a sharemilker deciding to take the law into his own hands by refusing to vacate the house on the farm owner's property after the expiry of his employment found a somewhat interesting sequence in the Whakatane Magistrate's Court last Tuesday when Eric Emery Mr Suckling) proceeded for possession of a farm cottage occupied by Alfred Lin wood. Plaintiff claimed that on September 24 last Linwood's sharemijking contract had been terminated but that he had refused to vacate the cottage he had occupied as a share* milker and defied plaintiff's* efforts to remove him. As a result jjlaintiff had lost two men wlio were prepared to sharemilk for him during the present season, because he could not accommodate them. Defendant said that he had refused to leave, until plaintiff paid him what was owing hi in from insurance. monies which he alleged had been paid out during his (defendant's) illness. When plaintiff had terminated his contract, he liad not submitted a statement of money owing as was stipulated : in the agreement and he therefore contended lie had committed a breach of contract.

The Magistrate: Don't you think you are confusing two things. if you feel you were wrongfully treated and that monej r was owing to you, you had another course open to you and that was to sue for it.. Defendant: That means that a farmer can push a sharemilkcr out any time he likes and you couldn't stop him. The Magistrate: A sliaremilker has a right to claim through the court any money he considcdrs lie is fully entitled to. Your remedy is one for damages for failure to carry out part of an agreement. But you can't simply sit down in another mail's house and stay there. An order was made for possession within 14 days with costs to the plaintiff amounting to £2 9s.