SHAREMILKING DISPUTE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4627, 19 November 1923, Page 2

SHAREMILKING DISPUTE.

PAEROA COURT CASE; PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED. A special sitting of the Magistrate s Court was held at Paeroa on Fridaylast to hear a sharemilking dispute in which James Alexander Reid, of Netherton, farmer, claimed from George Hall, of Pukekohe, sharemilker, the sum of £153 8s Bd. A counteiclaim amounting to £lO3 17s 10d was al«o entered by defendant. Mr E. W, Porritt appeared for Reid, and Mr R. H. Mackay, representing Messrs Stanton, Johnston, and Spence, of Auckland, appeared for Hall. In opening the case for the plaintiff Mr Porritt said that the case was somewhat different to the usual type in that the owner was suing the sharemilker. The agreement between the two parties, read to the court, had been agreed ’to by both parties, the pe-iod covered being from June 30, 1922, to May, 1923. The monthly payments from the dairy company were admitted. Plaintiff was a well-known settler in the district, and had been employing sharemilkers for years. Several of his sharemilkets had left him on their own account to take up farming. When defendant had been engaged he had agreed that his wife should assist, but that agreement had later on been repudiated.

James A Reid, plaintiff, said that prior to going to the war he had a man named Sitembridge employed as a sharemilker for two years, then followed a man named Smithers, who had full, charge of the farm during his absence at the war. On his return Smithers left to go farming, as also did another man named Cox, who was followed by the defendant, who was engaged on the same terms as Cox. He made the terms of the agreement clear to defendant, who had been given full charge of the general work on the farm owing to plaintiff’s war disabilities. Defendant’s wife had' agreed to assist with the work, and he had covered them by an insurance policy. After defendant had been at work about six weeks the work slackened off and he gave defendant work on wages, clearing a paddock. When the cows began to come in defendant was unable to cope with the work, but did not have his wi’e to assist. No other labour had been employed by defendant, who gave as an excuse that the cottage provided was not large enough. Ha had had occasion to speak to defendant about the dirty conditions of the milking machine and engine, and the majoure had been swept from the shed into a drain instead of being wheeled away. In September, he told defendant. that matters would have to improve or steps would be taken to remove him. Ma’tters did not improve very much, and the green feed supply had not been maintained. -He- hal supplied everything defendant asked for. On several occasions ii had been necessary to speak to defendant with regard to feeding off the turnips and repairing fences and drains. The quality of the milk had been affected by the condition of the plant and irregular feeding of the stock. Defendant had complained that the cows were not of good quality, so plaintiif had the stock inspector and veterinary surgeon along to inspect the cows Brushes and cleaning utensils had been supplied as soon as defendant had complained that he had no cleaning gear. The dirty rubberware (produced) disclosed the state defendant had allowed it to get into, even after receiving the complete cleaning outfit. Defendant had left plaintiff without making any arrangements for the evening’s milking. There was ample material for fencing purposes on the property, and £l5 had been allowed defendant for the cleaning of the drains over and above the agreement. The counterclaim was considered by the Court and several items were struck out by agreement. The item claimed by defendant for non-supply of pigs, amounting to £3o', was explained by plaintiff, He was sending his milk to a cheese factory, and it was not profitable to keep pigs. He had given defendant to understand that so long as the milk was sent to the cheese factory there would be no pigs kept, and he contended that defendant was not entitled tp claim for loss on pigs, because there were no pigs on the property. Plaintiff stated that the reason why he had withheld the April and May butter-fat payments was because defendant was not carrying out the terms of his agreement. Altogether defendant had been paid £338. To Mr Porritt plaintiff said that the milk dockets issued by the factory were handed to defendant. All plaintiff received was the .monthly statement from the company. Defendant had got the benefit iof the green feed put down by the former sharemilker, and last year was a better season for dairying than the .previous one.

To His Worship plaintiff said that in 1918-19 he had some 60 cows, the same number during 1919-20, 58 in 1920-21, and an average of 65 in 192122 were milked.

Herbert S. Sitembridge, farmer, of Elstow, said that he had been sharemilking previously for plaintiff. He had no difficulty in getting supplies frem plaintiff, and he had left to work up his own farm. Witness said that during hi,s term with plaintiff pigs had been kept for some time, but had been got rid of because they .were unprofitable. In his opinion it was not possible for one man to manage a four-cow plant and milk 60' cows. Frederick J. Smithers, farmer, Te A'roha, said that he had been with plaintiff for years, and had left his employ to take up a farm of his ownHe had done all the work on the farm while plaintiff was at the war. He. had taken over four or five pigs from Stembridge, but they were sold and not replaced. Plaintiff’s farm wo<? a good one, and he was well satisfied with the treatment he had received. He at no time had any trouble in getting extras for the shed or plant.

Alfred Tattersall, organiser for the N.Z. Co-op. Dairy Company, said that at plaintiff’s request he had visited the farm and inspected the shed and

milking utensils, and found the rubbers filthy and not fit to be used. The dirty state of the tubes would affect the quality of the milk. The shed was not clean, and there was an accumulation of manure close to the .shed, and the drain, which should have been kept clean, was blocked with manure and filth. Thomas Alfred Vowles, Netherton, said that his farm was opposite plaintiff’s, and he had inspected the property at plaintiff’s request. Witness detailed his examination of the farm, and .said that he had known the place for 15 years and in his opinion (t had gone back in conditions during last season. James Paton Findlay, stock inspector, Paeroa, detailed his inspection of the herd, and stated that he had found the whole herd quite satisfactory and healthy with the exception of one cow, which he had condemned for having an affection of the gland. In his opinion plaintiff had a very good herd. George Buchanan, farmer, Paeroa, said that he was accustomed to making farm valuations and had visited plaintiff’s farm on June 6 last. He considered that it would have cost £4O to put the farm in order. John Hubbard, engineer, Paeroa, gave evidence as to the make and condition of the engine on the farm. The engine had been regularly overhauled before the commencement of every season. When the electric power was installed witness had put in the shafting. A written statement was handed in from Charles Shepherd, veterinary surgeon, relative to the condition of the herd. Several witnesses for the defence were heard, after which the case was adjourned until December 5.