SHAREMILKING CASE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4421, 31 May 1922, Page 3

SHAREMILKING CASE.

UNSATISFACTORY AGREEMENT. (Before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M.) A case which has been before the court for some time was completed at a special sitting before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., on Monday last, th'p case occupying the whole day. W. A. Greaves, a sharemilker, sued B. J. Coldicutt for the balance of his share of] milk, supplied to the factory, and there was also a counter-claim for work which the defendant claimed had not been carried out by the plaintiff under the agreement, "arid for repairs to a Separator. Mr E. W. Porritt appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. J. L. Hanna for the defendant. After a conference the parties assessed the amount due to the plaintiff at £65, and the-case on the coun-ter-claim was then heard. • B. J. Coldicutt. in his evidence stated that according to the agreement Greaves had to keep the fences in repair, the rushes cut, and the drains cleaned out, besides attending to the herd. In order to help the plaintiff he had allowed him during the second season to use the milking machines, and certainly looked to him to have the work done. He considered that he should then: h’ave had.ample time to keep the place in repair. This was not being done, and he gave him a month’s notice. When witness went to take an inventory plaintiff said, “do you think it fair to bump a fellow if at this time of the year ? I will guarantee to clean up all the work.” This,'however, was riot done. The farm contained 102 acres and was partitioned into 13 paddocks. The first year he did 20’ chains and the second 53 chains of the drains after plaintiff had. promised faithfully to clean up the place if witness let him stop. The cost of cleaning the drains wculd be about 3s 6d or 4s per chain. The place was clear of rushes with the exception 'df two little paddocks of 2V. and 5 acres. Exclusive of those paddocks there was 60 acres upon which the rushes bad not been kept down. He thought that 12s 6d per acre was a reasonable price for clearing the rushes. The. fences were allowed to go into disrepair, and would cost about £2O to put in order. The separator was allowed to go into disrepair 1 , and cost over £6 to repair. He considered that the sharemilker would have ample time to look after the various farm work t necessary. The property ,was in good older when Ryan took it over, and plaintiff finished Ryan’s season without any complaint. His experience of sharemilkers was not a favourable one.

George Buchanan said that he knew the farm and considered it in good order when Ryan took it over. - He made it a condition that his share*milker should keep the fences and drains in good order, and also bring in five acres each year. From experience he .thought that a milker should have ample time to look after the farm besides attending to the milking and the herd generally. He did not consider that a man should have any difficulty in milking 47 cows and keeping the property in good order. He had. examined Coldicutt’s property and considered it was well drained. There were approximately 162 chains of fencing that required repairing. In some cases the (fences were swinging, and 1 in other cases t hoy were down and grass growing over the battons. 120 chains of drainr. required repairing; some were trodden out of existence and generally in a had order. He thought it would cost £lO to put Che fences in order and from 5s to 7s 6d per chain for the drain and approximately 65 acres of rushes worth 12s 6d per acre. He thought that the . fences 'had been neglected, and that was the cause of the drains being filled in. He considered it would take about two hours a day to water the stock, and that it was a fair thing that the sliaremilker should do t’he work on the farm; Cross-examined by Mr Porritt: In his own case the drains and, fences were in 'good order. He did not expect a man to put the place in order to begin with. George Johnson, labourer, at Nethertori, stated that he had known Mr Coldicvtt’s farm ever since Mr Coldicutt had,had it The farm was in good order when Ryan took it on, but last May he thought it was going back. The fences were bad and the greater part of the drains, was uncleancd. The rushes were fairly rough and thick in some paddocks. He was working for Mr. Coldicutt, and it took about two hours to milk and one. hour .to fill the water-troughs. He thought that a man could easily milk the cows and keep the farm in good order. To Mr Porritt: He had been on the farm several times just before Ryan took possession and would say that the drains were in perfect order. The milking and cleaning up took 2% hours, and about one hour to the factory.

George Death, farmer, of Netherton, said re thought that from his own experience a sharemilker should be able to keep 222 chains of drains clean and keep the rushes down and attend to the fencing. He was assuming that the place was in good order when it was taken over. Mr. Porritt: That is the point.

G. Davidson, engineer, of Paeroa, said the separator was brought to him for a complete overhaul. He found that it was in very bad order, and described its condition. The total cost of putting the machine in order was £7 ss. He thought that neglect was the cause of the trouble.

Mr, Porritt, in addressing the cour*:, said that the counter-claim was before the court before, and on that occasion .the magistrate said that it appeared that the claim was brought forward as an afterthought. Up to the time of Greaves leaving there had been monthly settlements and nothing had been said about the state of the place. W. A. Greaves, plaintiff, a sharemilker, said that Mr. Coldicutt had helped him with building bridges, fencing, and drains. Mr. Coldicutt paid him for grubbing rushes When he started the second season he was promised 60 cows.. The place was in a very bad state; the fences were down drains had not been cleaned,

and the rushes were over 12 month old. He had no complaint about hia work When Mr. Coldicutt gave him notice he said he was coming down to live there himself. Witness received his milk cheque right up to the last payment. Up to then there were no deductions and nqthing had, been said about work not having been done. He thought that it was impossible to carry out the tqrms of the agreement considering the! state o>: the farm when he took it over. The separator was in good working order -when he left. Mr. Coldicutt made no complaint about cutting the fences ro let the cows get to the water. The posts were all more or less rottenThe first season they got some rickers from the bush, but Mr. Coldicutt said that he did not wish them to cut any more of the kahikatea saplings. The one and only instruction from Mr. Coldicutt was to keep the tanks full of water for the stock. James Munro, farmer, Netherton, said he had been at Netherton for four or five years. He had worked, for Mr. Coldicutt rush, cutting, logging up, stumping and draining. The fences were of a poor class and difficult. to keep in repair. The drains were in very indifferent order, when he was working on the place. He had assisted Coldicutt to milk. He remembered Ryan going there. The drains and fences were .anything but good. The rushes had not been cleared off some paddocks. The place was not much worse than when Ryan took it over. He had helped Greaves on several occasions and considered him a man who would not waste time. He considered that a was doing the right thing by looking after the dairy stock The separator was an old one and not in good order. Mr. Hanna said that in discussing this matter a practical man had said to him that it all together depended upon the man you have to deal with. The witnesses assert that if the property was in good order wheji they took it over they should have no difficulty in keeping it so.

Mr. Porrit said that the point was why did Coldicutt give Greaves tlie second season if he was, not satisfied with b.is first season’s work ? The magistrate said that sharemilking agreements were mostly un satisfactory for the reason that it was impossible to specify in detail all that was required to be done. There were a number of mutual obligations; required, and it was necessary for a certain amount of give and take. It was not so muc'h. the agreement, but the spirit of it, that had to be acted up to. He ventured the opinion that there was not a sharemilking agreement in New Zealand that one or the other of the party could not. bring before the court. The question was, how much time had Greaves given to the general farm work ? He was bound to find on the evidence that Greaves might have done more. He thought, however, that Coldicutt set a high standard, and possibly nls (Coldicutt) experiences of sharemilkers made him- somewhat sore. Just how much more Greaves should have done it was m’ost difficult to arrive at. Ho thought that a reasonable sum to allow would be £3O, and he entered judgment for plaintiff for £35, and costs £7 19s.