SHEARERS AND STATION OWNER

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 216, 31 May 1918, Page 7

SHEARERS AND STATION OWNER

4 A CLAIM THAT FAILED. ' In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. W. G. Kiddell, S.M., Arthur Campbell, Samuel Henry Hunt, and Ernest Batcholor, shearers, belonging to the South Mind, proceeded against James D. Cruickshank, commission agent, carrying on the Wellington Farmers' Labour Bureau, 18 Grey Street,, and Charles de Vero Teschemaker-Shute, sheepfarmer, Blenheim, to recover certain sums for an alleged breach of a shearing contract. The plaintiffs, in answer to an advertisement appearing in a Christchurch paper, communicated with the det'endnnf. Cruickshank, and were engaged to work on Teschemaker-Shute's station in Marlborough, the understanding being that each man would have dOGO.sheep to shear

in each of two sheds on the station. They paid Cruickshank their fees and proceeded to Marlborough. The number of sheep for shearing was smaller than had been expected, and Campbell's tally was 2301, Batchelor's 2296, and Hunt's 1953. The claim' of each of the plaintiffs was based on the number that was short of 4000 at the award rate of 275. lid. per 100, plus expenses. The plaintiffs were represented by Mr. J. Scott, and Mr. A. W. Bjair appeared for the defendants. . . Campbell, in reply to Mr: Blair, said that bo had understood that there were . to be four shearers only at each shed, while as a matter of fact there were fivo at ono and /eight at the other, and the tally was thereby brought down. No complaint was made to Mr. Teschemaker Shute, but the matter was later placed in tho hands of th.c union. His total tally for the season, from October 22 to the beginning of February, .was over 5000 sheep. Charles Grainger, representative of'tho New Zealand Shearers' Union, said that it was not an established custom for a station-holder to engage shearers to shear throughout the district. For the defence Mr. Blair pointed out. that as no complaint had been made no chance was afforded of righting tho mat--

ter. Notice should liave been given at once of any dissatisfaction, but nothing was done until after the close of the season. . Ho considered the basis of tho claim /absurd, for it meant that the slowest worker claimed the largest 'amount.

He would call no evidence in defence of Cruickshank, against whom there was not the slightest evidence. C. de Vere Tesahemaker-Shute said that for the pu.it 15 years, with the exception of last year, he had engaged men for four stations in the district, and thus the presence of several teams of shearers in the district was avoided. The complainants had shorn more than' 4000 sheep each last season through being engaged by him, as they later moved on to other stations; Ho had to hire a taxi-cab from Blenheim in addition to using his own car to convey the shearers from ono station til another,, otherwise they would not have turned'up at the second'station. Witness lield that 1000 per stand lneaJlt 4000 per'mah. , ' Mr. Blair said there were three main points for tho defence:.(a) That there was no condition .in tho contract that 4000 sheep had to bo produced at any. particular station; (b) that assuming'that there was such a condition there was ho damage; (c) that even if •thero were damage the plaintiffs, by their own action, had concurred in the position and had put it out of the power of the defendant to remedy the damage, v ■No evidence was called in respect to the claims of Batchelor and Hunt, as Mr. J, Scott agreed that the same legal principlo was involved in each case. i After reviewing tho case at some length tho Magistrate said that the plaintiffs, under the - contract, could have gone to the stafion-owner when the 1000 sheep were npt supplied, and could have demanded that they should be supplied. They could thcu have claimed damages 1 if the sheep were not produced. Howover, the men passed on to another eta- i tio.va.rid by not protesting at the time had waived the right to protest. It was the duty of the plaintiffs to minimise the damage, and it had been minimised out of sight. There was no case against Cruickshank, and tho plaintiffs were nonsuited in their action against Tesche-maker-Shuto with costs.