FARMER AND SHARE-MILKER.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1630, 28 October 1916, Page 3

FARMER AND SHARE-MILKER.

CLAIM FOR DEPOSIT

AGREEMENT TO QUIT

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr W. Poynton, S.M., Edward Boswell proceeded against Augustus Percy Easton to recover the sum of £2b, being an amonnl held by the defendant as a deposit for the proper carrying out of a. share-milking agreement, between the parties, such agreement having since been terminated by arrangement. The defendant counterclaimed for £3O, being £25 for grubbing- rushes which it was

alleged should have been carried out by the plaintiff under the agreement, and £5 for alleged damage to defendant’s engine. The case was a, sequel to one heard at the Court in May last, in wdiich the quarrels of neighbours at Maroliri were ventilated, defendant in (he present ease on that occasion laying an information of theft of milk against a neighbour. Boswell appeared as a witness for the defence on that occasion, end from the evidence it was apparent that there was “no love lost” between the plaintiff and defendant in this case. At the end of May an aiTangcmcnt was entered into between Hast on and Boswell whereby it was agreed that Easton would release Boswell from carrying out the conditions of the share-milking agreement, which at that lime still had a short period to run, on condition that in future Boswell would not reside* any closer to Easton than Foxlon. 'This agreement was duly signed, and Boswell immediately left Easton’s property, and for a week stayed with the neighbour with whom Easton bad had the previous trouble. Later on he again returned to the same place and stayed for some time. Defendant claimed that plaintiff, by staying- at the neighbour’s place bad broken the agreement entered into, and therefore called upon him to carry out the conditions of the. share-milking- agreement, which included certain rush grubbing. Boswell refused, and Easton thereupon declined to return (he deposit. Boswell contended that he hud carried out his part of the agreement, as he had not resided in the locality, hut had only stayed as a guest with a neighbour for a shortperiod; his furniture at the lime being stored.

Evidence lor the plaintiff 'vas given by the plaintiff himself, Edward Boswell, and by Ada Boswell, Ethel Belling and H. C. Wilkins, and for the defence by A. P. Easton, Frederick Woods and Joseph Williams.

The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said that Ihe agreement entered into that plamtifi should slay away from the locality was not tin# reasonable, but the agreement was defective in other ways. Xo stated period during which Boswell should not reside in the locality was given and the law did not allow a, man to hind himself in fhis-way. Two, five, or oven ten years may have been considered a reasonable term, but it could not be binding for ever. The 1 agreement was defective on Ibis point, and also in another way in so far that it did not state the date from which it was to take effect. It was only reasonable that Boswell should he allowed some little time to make arrangements to go away, and the Afagistrato said that he* inns! find that Boswell had substantially complied wilh the conditions of (he a green lent. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £2O with eosls £1 9s, witnesses' expense's £1 Ids, and solicitor’s fee £2 12s.

Air Cooper appeared for phiinlili, and Air Clifford Aloore for defendant.