FARMERS AT VARIANCE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4635, 7 December 1923, Page 2

FARMERS AT VARIANCE.

-— ■, ' ■: g CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM. _ __' BOTH ACTIONS FAIL. At the Magistrate’s Court, Paeroa, oh Wednesday last, before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M-, Milton Walters, of Cam- ~ bridge, claimed £45 12s Id, alleged to be balance of wages due and share of proceeds of sale of pigs, whilst Ernest ' James Walters, of Hikutaia, claimed for £77 18s 4d, alleged to be\ money advanced, board and and sale of kauri gum. Mr E. W. Forritt, instructed by Messrs Lewis and Dallimore, Cambridge, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr B. B. Clendon, of Thames, for the defendant. In opening the case for plaintiff Mr Porritt said that plaintiff and defendant were second cousins, and plaintiff had worked for defendant on his farm at Hikutaia for four years as farm manager. Milton Walters, farmer, of bridge, said that he had been employ--ed by the defendant prior to going to the war, and on his return -from the front he was out of work ana applied to defendant for a reference. At a later date defendant wrote .to him of a farming proposition at the Thames Const which he had inspected but found unsuitable. He returned to Gisborne to look for work, and. some time later defendant offered him a position on his Hikutaia farm. He accepted the offer and stayed with 3efenlant in his house for seven weeks. Defendant agreed to pay £3, with free cottage, milk, fuel and lighting, and a half share in the pigs sold. He worked as farm manager for four months, at the end of which time defendant suggested that as he was short of ready money plaintiff should receive a smaller sum each month, bnt that his wages should still be £3 a week, which would be paid in full when defendant held his sale, or to 1 the event of plaintiff going to another job. After working for defendant for ten months he heard of a more suitable billet in Cambridge, and before going he asked defendant for a squaring up. As defendant was then just going to Auckland a final settlement was postponed, although repeated requests had been made for the balance duo. Cross-examined by Mr Clendon, plaintiff admitted that he had not fed the pigs, as that work was carried out by another farm-hand, and he had only taken the pigs to the sale on one occasion. He had occasionally received written instructions from defendant regarding the, wotk on the. farm. A written statement was handed in from the wife of plaintiff and was accepted as evidence. THE DEFENCE. E J. Walters, defendant, stated that he had previously had plaintiff .on his farm prior to the war,, and on his return he offered him a home on his Hikutaia farm. He had a friend 2 ** ly regard for plaintiff, and was anxious to help him. It had never been'ij agreed to appoint plaintiff manager' of the property. Defendant said, thar his greatest interest; in farming matters was the management of all affairs affecting, the farm. As plaintiff was looking for a farm defendant was prepared to help him and do him a ; goncT turn by offering him a home for • ,himself; wife,.and child on the farm, and to allow him £lO a month, together with ; free milk, cottage, fuel, vegetables, -'and fruit, but nothing had ever been said about a share iu the pigs. It had cost £BO to put the cottage in order to meet the wishes of plaintiff’s wife. He was positive that £lO a month had been agreed upon as wages. -During the..period he had employed plaintiff £lOB 5s had been paid; but no receipts were asked for or given. Had plaintiff not taken the matter to court defendant would not have dreamed of counterclaiming, as he had no desire to be. hard on him in any way. . Cross-examined by Mr Porritt, defendant said that he was unable to jlo manual work, and got the enjoyment out of his farm and stud stock of mnnaging his own affairs, and he had no intention of allowing plaintiff to manage his farm. George Wm. Hannam, butcher, Hikutaia, said that he had .a farm at Omahu which plaintiff and defendant had looked at, and he remembered defendant saying that if plaintiff decided to take the farm he would be willing to assist him with stock. He was always under the impression that plaintiff was a farm-hand, on defendant’s farm, but not the manager of it. Mr t s A. Rare, Hikutaia, said that she-had. been housekeeper for defendant from January to November, and remembered plaintiff living in the defendant’s house. When plaintiff moved to the collage he was supplied with all he needed in the way of-fueL milk, butter, vegetables, etc. James Kelly said that he had been working for defendant for ten--years. ; He always had charge of the pigs, and had received 10 per cent, on all sales of pigs in addition to his wages. He had no knowledge of plaintiff having a share in the pigs, and he regarded him as a general farm-hand. His Worship said that the-case illustrated that relatives . ■were better . apart. Dealing with the claim flrs'C, the real question was whether plaintiff was engaged at £3 a week or £lO a month. An outstanding feature of .the case was the extraordinary goodness and consideration of defendant towards plaintiff, and it was not likely that defendant would have haggled over £3 a week or £lO a month. The ev-dence of Mrs Milton Walters, which had been admitted by consent, was not very satisfactory. No evidence had been tendered to prove that plaintiff was entitled to a share of the pigs, and the claim had not been established. His Worship said he felt sure that defendant would never have counterclaimed had he not been<forced into the action by plaintiff. The counterclaim must fail also, and no order would be made for costs for either side . -