SHARE-MILKING DISPUTE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4772, 5 November 1924, Page 3

SHARE-MILKING DISPUTE.

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION. AN ORDER MADE. At the Magistrate’s Court, Paeroa, on Monday, before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., L. E. Cassrels (Mr’Eric A. Porrittj claimed possession of a dwellinghouse on Koauiti Farm, Te Aroha Road, Paeroa, occupied- by Albert F. ' Billington (Mr C. N. O’Neill) as late shareholder for the plaintiff. Louis E. Cassrels, farmer, Paeroa, said that the defendant had entered his employment in September, 1923. An agreement had been drawn up, and defendant had agreed to the sharemilking basis as set out by him. Defendant had worked under the agreement until August of this year. At that time a new agreement was drawn up, but defendant would not sign it, and gave notice that he would leave jat the end of October. There had also been trouble over the hay paddocks, which had been closed for hay after top-dressing, but the defendant had turned the cows'into the paddocks, evidently for the purpose of swelling the milk production for the last few weeks. As a result of such conduct witness felt that it was not safe to leave his affairs longer in the hands of defendant, so he served him with a notice to quit in 24 hours. When giving defendant notice to leave witness had offered him a house in Willoughby Street for a couple of weeks, rent free, provided he got but of the house on the farm, but the offer had not been accepted. Defendant had stated to plaintiff that he would not move out of the farmhouse. To Mr O’Neill plaintiff said that the ‘ defendant was quite familiar with the contents of the agreement * and had never questioned it in any way. The agreement had not been signed, for the reason that each had agreed to take the other’s word of honour A previous sharermilker had iR worked for plaintiff for seven years without a signed agreement. Continuing, plaintiff said that the paddock that had been shut up for hay was situated a considerable distance from the farm, and ne had no knowledge that the paddock had been grazed off for a week before October 12 the date complained of when the cows had been put in. Defendant was fully aware that the paddock had to -be closed for hay. A final settlement for the amount due to the defendant.for a portion of October had not yet been made. To Mr Porritt plaintiff said that full payments had been made under the agreement. To His Worship plaintiff said that his new share-milker and family, who had taken over on October 20, were at present sleeping in a hay-loft, and the house was urgently required. In opening for the defence Mr O'Neill contended that the terms of the agreement had not been satisfactorily carried out. The arrangements made by the pla'intiff had been very unsatisfactory. Trouble had occurred over the payment of the annual bonus ft’om the Dairy Company, and at that time an amended agreement had been drawn up in which provision was made for the carrying on of a milk round. His Worship pointed out that the claim was merely one for possession of a certain house. Mr O’Neill said that he wished to show that the defendant was actually employed at the time he was given notice to quit, and as the defendant ' was still under the agreement he was entitled to receive reasonable notice to quit. Albert Frank Billington, sharemilker. Paeroa, said that he had been engaged by plaintiff on a third shaie of butter-fat and a half share of calves and pigs. An agreement had been drawn up by plaintiff, but it had not been signed. At the time he gave notice he was milking 74 cows, but without the use of the hay paddocks there was only enough grazing for about 50 cows. In his opinion the ‘ hay crop had not been ruined or the growth retarded. It had been his intention to carry on with the plaintiff during this season. Cross-examined, defendant said that his principal objection to the agreement was because plaintiff wanted too much work done for a one-third share. A two-fifths share would have been nearer the mark, considering the amount of work that plaintiff wanted done. To His Worship defendant said that a new agreement had been discussed, but had been objected to. His Worship said that the position •was quite clear. The only question was whether the employment had terminated. It was quite clear that there had been no position as employer and share-milker in October of — this year. To his mind there was no defence and he could not see why the matter had not been settled out of court. An order would be made for possession on November 10. ■ Costs amounting to £3 2s were allowed to plaintiff.