FARMERS IN DISPUTE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5112, 8 April 1927, Page 4

FARMERS IN DISPUTE.

N'ETHERTON CASE CONTINUED. A COMPROMISE EFFECTED. At the Paeroa Magistrate’s Court, before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., on Month.y. further evidence was laken in the case in which David L. Cappet, farmer, Nethcrton (Mr A. T. Jones), claimed the sum of £26 6s alleged to be due for certain farm work done during the months from October, 1925, to June, 1926, and for money given to defendant, Peter Roach, farmer, Netherton (Mr C. N. O’Neill), for safe keeping in December, 1926, and not returned.

Defendant counter-claimed for the sum of £ll 12s. and denied that tho plaintiff did work to the value in his statement e.f 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, and hire of set of disc and type harrows, and sundries.

In re-examination the defendant said that plaintiff had frequently borrowed his horse for the purpose of carting milk. The hoi'sc was valued at £l5, and was recognised to be one of the best horses in Nethertop. Thomas G. Johnson, farmer, Netherton, said that prior to last Christmas plaintiff and he had been friendly, and he had supplied plaintiff with skim milk. In conversation with witness on one occasion plaintiff had said that he had paid £l6 or £l7 for pigs purchased from Roach. With regard to the sowing of turnips on defendant’s land, plaintiff had said to witness that it was more satisfactory to work on another man’s capital. Plaintiff had frequently borrowed a horse from witness, but no record was kept of the time he had it. Plaintiff onlyborrowed witness’ horse when he could not get defendant’s. To Mr Jones witness said that he always understood that the plaintiff offered to take the place of defendant in the hay-making gang. He estimated the value of defendant’s horse at £3O at the outside. Harry E. Hill, farmer, Awaiti. said that he had known defendant for over 17 years, and he was a man who was respected and trusted by-the district. Defendant was not a 'hard, grasping man, but he was a good man at a bargainl. Witness could hand-dress a - acre paddock in a day quite comfortably, and do it between milkings. To suggest that it would take 14 days t“ disc sow, and cover four acres of, turnips was rather much. The work should be done comfortably in about six days. The defendant was a good farmer, and witness had never seen any stock that required feeding up. Witness detailed the community system that was in vogue among the farmers without any thought of payment.

To Mr Jones witness said that defendant’s horse was worth about £32, and if a man could afford to buy a horse he would never hire one.

In addressing the Court Mr C. N. O'Neill said that the defendant was a man of high standing in the community, and much regretted the position in which he had been placed. It had net heeu possible to settle the matter satisfactorily out of court. Mr O’Neill traversed the evidence at length, and pointed out .that the plaintiff, on his own admission, had brought the action because defendant had ordered him off the farm and he was afraid to go and claim his share of tlie turnips because e.f trespassing. Without hesitation defendant had paid a sum of £8 16s into court tecover plaintiff’s share of the turnips. The unsatisfactory evidence of plaintiff went to show that some of the items in the claim were frivolous. “He that sought equity should come with clean hands,” said Mr O’Neill, who asked the Bench to regard the claims as unsubstantiated, and that the plaintiff be non-suited, in view of the standing of the defendant and the bad faith shown by plaintiff. Mr Jones said that there was no doubt that plaintiff had done, valuable work for defendant, and the whole claim was reasonable but might be divisible on account e.f some of the ■work being done outside the agreement. After reviewing the evidence Mr Jones said he was. prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the Benell. THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION.

In summing up His Worship said that it was a difiiciilt case, as disputes between friends quite often were. There was no doubt that services had been given willingly by both parties, and it was evident that while the friendship lasted there had hot been any intention to charge.

Dealing with the claim first, the magistrate said that plaintiff had failed on his claim for top-dressing, etc. The claim for share of turnips had been met by defendant paying £8 into court. Defendant had adopted a very fair manner in paying that money into court, and had adopted a sensible course. Plaintiff would he 'allowed the £B. Plaintiff had not cleai'ly established his claim of £6 for levelling the ground, and it would be disallowed. With regard to removing the cream-stand, the magistrate said

he was satisfied that there had been no intention to charge at the time. However, the work had been done,

and there was apparently nothing set against it in return. Plaintiff would be allowed £1 for that item. With regard to the roll of notes handed by plaintiff t - '. defendant to take care of. evidence had shown that defendant had placed the money in his pocket and had handed it intact to plaintiff when he asked for it. Defendant’s evidence on the point was accepted, and plaintiff’s claim for 30s would be disallowed. So far as the claim for fencing was concerned, it had to be admitted that although plaintiff had benefited by having the crop protected, the defendant had also benefited by having an improvement made to ■his land. Plaintiff would, therefore, be allowed £1 2s 6d, half the cost of the fence.

The total amount allowed on the claim was £lO 10s.

Referring to the counter-claim, the magistrate said that' the defendant’s evidence had been given clearly and fairly, and t'he Bench was prepared to accept it. The claim for the hire of horses and implements was so. involved and difficult that it would not be safe to enter judgment. The claim for the loan of a boar>'£L and the balance due on the sow and litter, £2, would be allowed. An order would be made that of the £lO 10s recovered by plaintiff the payment of the balance after satisfaction of the judgment, be paid to defendant. Concerning costs, t.he magistrate said it appeared to have been an unfortunate quarrel, and he would order each party to pay his own costs.