IMPORTANT DECISION

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 335, 7 February 1902, Page 3

IMPORTANT DECISION

PRIVILEGES OF A SHEARER,

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr Barton, David Caldwell (Mr It. N. [ Jones) sued James Macfarlane (Mr Nolan) for i;7 10s, for shearing work on Hauiti station. Plaintiff deposed that he was employed by defendant to shear ewes at jSI per 100, and larnbs at 16s Bd. He had not been paid, because he left without defendant’s leave before the shed was cut out. He knocked off work because plaintiff complained of the mannor in which witness shore the sheep. On the day defendant complained, he had shorn 54 sheep. In reply to Mr Nolan, witness stated I lie understood there were 17,000 or 20,000 sheep in the flock, but he did not I know how many had been shorn when he left. It was understood when shearers were engaged that they should work until the sheep were finished, if the employer was satisfied. In some sheds it was the practice to mark sheep which were badly shorn, and these were not paid for. Witness would have gone through the shed if defendant had not complained. Defendant said he engaged the plaintiff with 13 other men, to shear his ewes and lambs. Howie was spokesman for the shearers, as a difference in tho price caused Borne difficulty. Through Howie the shearers were told that they were to shear the ewes at il and the lambs at 16s Bd, and find themselves. In reply to the shearers, who wanted to know whether it waß worth going that distance, witness told them there were between 17,000 and 20,000. Plaintiff was one of the party. The custom was to pay the men at the j

end of shearing, but nothing was said as to the time of payment. The practice here and throughout the colony, once a man went on the board was for him to remain till the shed was finished. Witness had always shorn under a verbal agreement. When defendant left there were still 7000 to do. After an absence from the shed, witness came in and found several men, among whom was plaintiff, shearing very badly. He complained of the work, pointing out two sheep in the pen and one on the floor. Plaintiff, who was excited, afterwards came up and stated he was going to leave. Witness told him to go on working, because if he left ho would be liable to forfeit the amount owing for the 3heep already shoin by him.

By Mr Jones : The knives of the machine were in good working order, and there had been no complaint. It was a common thing for shearers to do bad work when the boss of the shed was absent.

Mr Nolan said that in three previous cases in this district judgment had been given favorable to the action of defendant. The plaintiff contracted to shear until the shed was completed, and by leaving forfeited his right to payment for what he had done. Mr Jones claimed that the contract was a divisible one, and plaintiff was entitled to payment. His Worship held thet the contract was divisible, and the plaintiff was not bound to stay until the whole of the sheep were shorn. If sheep-farmers desired shearers to remain until the whole flock was shorn there must be an agreement to that effect, otherwise the shearers were entitled'to be paid for what they l had done. He had given a similar decision before. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, and costs 13s. Mr Nolan said he would appeal. His Worship said he would much like to see the question settled. It was a very easy matter for sheep-farmers to enter into a specific agreement. Mr Nolan: If your Worship ran a sheep farm on those conditions you would find a difficulty in getting shearers. Mr Jones : That is the trouble. They won’t work under these harsh agreements.