FARMERS AT VARIANCE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5103, 21 March 1927, Page 4

FARMERS AT VARIANCE.

NETHLRTON SETTLERS’ DISPUTE. CASE. NOT CONCLUDED, At the Paeroa Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday last, before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., David L. Capper; farmer, Netherto’n (Mr A. T. Jones) claimed ,the sum of £26 6s. alleged to be due for certain farm work done during t,lre months from October, 1925, to June, 1926, and for money given to defendant, Peter Roach, farmer, Netlierton (Mr C. N. O’Neill), for safekeeping in December, 1926, and not returned.

Defendant counter-claimed for the sum of £4l 12s, and denied that the plaintiff did work to the value in his statement, of claim. Defendant also denied that he had refused to perform his part of any agreement entered into between them. The counterclaim was made up of horse hire, set of disc and tyne harrows, and. sundries.

In outlining the case Mr Jones explained that defendant had since paid into Court the sum of £8 for plaintiff’s share of the value of the turnips grown.

D. L. Capper, plaintiff explained that he had agreed to put, in about 'four or five .acres of turnips, and in return was to receive one-third of the crop. Another agreement was entered into for the top-dressing of two paddocks of 19 to 20 acres, and also to assist with defendant’s harvesting. The top-dressing was duly carried out, but plaintiff did not; help w’ith the harvesting because defendant wanted him to go round assisting the neighbours. He was perfectly willing to help defendant, and defendant had never suggested that the work was not; done thoroughly. In November and December he put in about 20 days in working in turnips. The fencing was done at the request of defendant, and had nothing to do with the third share of the turnips. A cream-stand had also been removed at the request of defendant, but he had not paid for the work. In December last at the Paeroa Hotel he handed defendant £7 to take care of because he w,as competing at the sports meeting at Paeroa and was afraid he might lose it. Defendant later handed him back £5 10 s. When Questioned as to the balance defendant admitted having spent 10s, and said he must have lost a £1 note. Plaintiff said he offered to toss defendant double or nothing. However defendant said he would not toss him, and neither had he returned the £1 10s.

Touching on the counter-claim, the plaintiff explained that he had purchased a stack of hay valued at £25, which he offered to defendant for tlhe use of a draught horse. This was agreed to, and he sledged out his own and defendant’s hay to the cattle, the whole operation taking about an hour and a half each day. No other use was made o'f the horse except tio cart some milk from Plaintiff’s farm to the stand each morning. At one time he used three of defendant’s (horses for two half-days., as provided fol’ under the agreement. A set of discs .and tyne harrows had also been used for th© same time. A bull calf had been given to him by defendant in return for odd jobs done on the farm. He had also reared a boar and kept it f (i r about three months ‘for defendant. There was no agreement made to purchase the pig. He Iwd purchased a sow and litter from defendant for £l5 cash. Defendant had later stated that he was satisfied with the price.

To Mr O’Neill witness said he had been farming and labouring all his life. The claim was made only after defendant had ordered him off his farm in December last. He fully expected to have the use of defendant’s three horses and implements during Che season, as agreed upon. They had never entered into written agi cements, and the verbal agreements were the outcome of discussions and a desire to help each other as neighbours. He had never agreed to forego his harvesting money due by Considine and arranged by defendant in return for the grazing of the mare.

To Mr Jones plaintiff said that at the end of the harvesting season he had given defendant a definite understanding that he would not go out harvesting this season for defendant’s neighbours.

The defence was a denial of any breaches of agreements

Peter Roach, defendant, said that lie had been farming at Netherton for nine years. It was customary for farmers to attend to the grass during the winter. He had some levelling to do, and plaintiff offered to do the levelling in return for the loan of a horse to cart in the hay. There was no suggestion of charging horse hire or being paid for the levelling. The arrangement was, carried out to the satisfaction of ’ both parties. Plaintiff was also granted the use of the horse to cart out his skim milk. They saw each other daily, and had always been friendly. Plaintiff had the horse nearly all ,the time from April to July, and had only helped defendant on a few occasions, to cart out the hay, as defendant’s cattle were grazing at Waikino. He had a sledge and spring cart of his own, and did not require plaintiff’s sledge. He denied that plaintiff was to receive the hay in return for top-dress-ing 20 acres of land. The work was to be done in payment for the use of a horse that plaintiff had had for a considerable time. Plaintiff’s claims were unreasonably high. With regard to the cash handed to him by plaintiff, defendant stated that he had put the roll of notes into his pocket without counting it, and the money remained there until plaintiff claimed it the following day. When the money was handed over plaintiff alleged that it was short. He could not understand why plaintiff should have said that he had spent 10s of the money. The cash had .'not been touched, but to try and avoid any ill-feeling in the matter he offered to cart out the manure for top-dressing free of cost for plaintiff, and the offer was accepted. Defendant detailed the community system that existed among the farmers during the hay-making season. It was agreed that, plaintiff would take the place of defendant, who had a cream cartage contract, in the group of farmers who were to assist each other. In return for the work done lie agreed to give plaintiff three acres of hay. Plaintiff subsequently refused to carry out the agreement unless he received 2s 6d an hour. He had replied .that the farmers could not afford to pay the money, and were dependent on each other for help. Plaintiff became angry, and after some words defendant tpld him to go out and stop out. Next morning they met and cnee again they were the best of friends. The statements made by plaintiff with regard to the borrowing of tlie discs and harrows were strenuously denied by defendant . The counter-claim was merely a set-off and defence of plaintiff’s charges. Defendant said he would never have charged .for any of the items had plaintiff not forced the action. The bull calf was given to plaintiff in return for odd jobs done. The boar had

been borrowed by plaintiff for his own purpose, and it was not true that defendant’ wanted to get rid of .the pig-

To Mr Jones witness said it was reasonable to suppose that, plaintiff trusted defendant, otherwise why did he hand -ver his money at the hotel. The roll of notes was not counted by plaintiff in his presence.

At this stage the magistrate said that he could not give further time to the case at that stage, and it was adjourned until April 4'.