PAYMENT WITHHELD

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 32, 2 October 1946, Page 5

PAYMENT WITHHELD

MAIZE PLUCKING DISPUTE

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF In the Whakatane Magistrate’s Court last Tuesday, Mac Hawiki (Mr B. S. Barry), representing four other Maoris who, together with himself, formed a maize plucking gang, successfully claimed the sum of £23 7s from Peter Lyon Baird Senr. (Mr G. Otley). Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., was on the bench.

Mr Barry stated that defendant had four paddocks of maize to be plucked, 'and had let the contract to the gang concerned, at a rate of £3 10s per acre plus 6 sheep for meat. The first paddock, consisting of 15 acres, had been completed, and £3O had been paid by defendant on account. When the second paddock of 9 acres had been plucked full payment of £3l 10s had been made for this, but the balance of the money owing on the first paddock had been withheld. The gang had started work on the third paddock, but a dispute had arisen between plaintiff and defendant over the full payment for the first paddock, and the natives had stopped work.

Progress Payments

Mac Hawiki affirmed that the agreement had been to pluck the four paddocks for a price of £3 10s per acre plus six sheep.

After the second paddock had been completed, he had spoken to defendant concerning payment, and defendant had written a cheque for £3l 10s. Later he (plaintiff) had returned and asked for the balance of the money owing on the first paddock, and had been told that this would noUbe forthcoming until the whole job had been completed. If they had received the full payment, they would have certainly carried on and plucked the other paddocks. To Mr Otley, witness admitted that it was not he who had made the original arrangements concerning the plucking, but one Charlie Wimutu, although he himself was the boss of the gang. In the past, payment had always been made paddock by paddock, although there was no agreement in this particular contract to that effect. The £3O which had been paid on the first paddock was in the nature of an advance. Th§ first paddock had been the lighter crop.

Spokesman’s Evidence Charlie Wimutu in evidence said that he had acted as spokesman for the gang in the initial -stages, but had not done any of the actual plucking. The price had been fixed at £3 10s per acre, but nothing had been mentioned concerning the lightness of part of the crop. The gang had recently done a fair amount of work in the Thornton area, and had had no disputes over payment. Defendant had stressed the fact that he wanted ten men or less, as a big gang was unweildy. At their request, defendant had gone to Te Teko to get some more pluckers, but they had refused to work in the gang for wages. Actually, there had been five in the gang, and three employees. He himself, was not at any time the boss of the gang.

‘To Ensure Completion’

Mr Otley submitted that an entire contract had been made between defendant and Wimutu, and that there had been no mention of progress payments. The contractor had not fulfilled his agreement, and therefore, had no claim. Peter Lyon Baird Senr. stated that he had made the original agreement with Wimutu. The first paddock which had been plucked had held only a very lifht crop, and he had said to the gang they were making good money out of it, but this would equalise itself later, when work was commenced on the other three paddocks, which were heavier. When the first had been completed, he had intimated that he intended holding part of the money back, in order to ensure that the job would be finished. Nothing had befcn said about progress payments. When the gang had walked out, he had waited two days before putting a machine in, to give them time to change their minds if they wanted to. Machine plucking also cost £3 10s per' acref but he had tried to avoid having his maize machine plucked, as he was short of cattle feed.

Mr Barry: It was you who told the Maoris where to start wasn’t it? Defendant: Yes.

Mr Barry: If the money had been paid for the first two paddocks, the other two would have been plucked also. Defendant: How was I to know? Mr Barry: You have had your maize plucked for £23 7s less than you expected at the expense of the natives. Defendant: No. They made good

money on the first paddock, but the rest was a better crop, and the returns would have evened out over the whole contract.

Peter Lyon Baird Jun., employed as a sharemilker by defendant, gave corroborative evidence stating that he had been present when Wimutu and his father had entered into the agreement. He had always heard Wimutu referred to by the other Maoris as ‘the boss.’

In giving judgment for plainiiff, the Magistrate commented that it would be unjust for defendant to’ retain the £23 7s as the Maoris had performed the work. Had defendant paid them for the work as it had been completed, they had given their word they would continue till the job was done. It was possible that he might have suffered a loss through having to put a machine in the last two paddocks, but he had received all that he had expected at £3 10s per acre for the first two paddocks.