CASE FOR POSSESSION

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 6, 2 August 1946, Page 5

CASE FOR POSSESSION

SHAREMILKERS HOME IN , DISPUTE JUDGMENT FOR FARMER A further echo of the drastic nature of the accommodation question in this district was heard in the Magistrate’s Court last Tuesday, when William Alexander McCracken (Mr Otley) proceeded against his erstwhile sharemilker Norman George Fairburn (Mr Barry) for possession of the house which he had occupied for the previous season but refused to relinquish to the new sharemilker on July 1 last—the commencement of the new season.

Mr Otley sketched the proceedings leading up to the case and declared that Fairburn had never paid any rent for the house and had no colour of right to it in any way. His tenancy was preventing the new man from operating as he should and the administration of the farm with its big herd of 134 cows was severely handicapped. No Private Agreement

Plaintiff in his evidence said that there was no private agreement between himself and defendant, both of them relying upon the Government terms. Defendant had been told that his contract would terminate on June 30 and although he had made some effort ot discover alternative employment he had failed to remove himself and his family by the date mentioned and when interviewed by witness had- ultimately refused to go. He was now working on the Thornton Road near Matata and was actually boarding another man in the house. Witness added that the new sharemilker was his own son who brought with him besides his wife and child two other men. They had arrived with their fui’niture and found the gate wired.

Defendant had refused likewise to allow even a room of the house to be made available for storing the furniture in and eventually it had to be stored on the verandah and covered with canvas where it remained to the present day. Frederick James Harold McCracken the new sharemilker, gave corroborative evidence and added that since being refused the house he had been accommodated in his father’s home to the great inconvenience of all parties. Written Notice Required Mr Barry submitted that under the Act, written notice was required before a sharemilking agreement could be terminated. This had not been done in this case and defendant still had the right to surmise that an implied contract extended into the new season.

The Magistrate: You would contend that he can go away from the farm and do work elsewhere and still have a claim to be a sharemilker?

Mr Barry: We claim that not having been given notice in writing the agreement may have expired, but has not been officially terminated. My client has to work somewhere He is not permitted to work on the farm. Furthermore he is in an unfortunate position as another victim of the housing shortage and to protect his family he has to take advantage of what legal remedies he has. The defendant admitted that he occupied the house with his wife and five children, the eldest of which was 11 years. He had tried in vain to get another sharemilking job. He would shift anywhere if he could find a house in which to live. There was absolutely no place offering anywhere. Suggestions Asked For

In answer to the Magistrate’s query as to what the plaintiff had to say about notice in writing, Mr Otley contended that such procedure did not apply in this case as both parties knew that the contract would not be renewed and the position had been accepted by by the defendant long before the date of expiry. The proof that defendant realised the position was borne out by his taking another job. All he was doing at the present time was living on in the house which had been given to him as a sharemilker.

The Magistrate: Well, what is ne to do? I think that plaintiff is entitled to possession but has either counsel any suggestions to make? Mr Otley: The position on the farm is getting more and more difficult.

The Magistrate: Yes I have heard all that side, but what about this family! Mr Barry: The position is that defendant will go when he gets a house. The new sharemilker has at least got a roof over his head. The defendant has nothing if he is put out!

The Magistrate: I was disappointed in the defendant’s attitude

with regard to the storage of the furniture. He also wired up the gate. An order will be made that he give up the house within two months. Costs amounting to £2 11s were allowed against defendant.