SHAREMILKING CLAIM

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3650, 11 June 1927, Page 2

SHAREMILKING CLAIM

NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT. At the loeal S.M. Court yesterday before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., Messrs Harris and Conchje (Air. Ongley) proceeded against F. S. Easton (Mr. %>rgin) for the recovery of £lB 4s Id, allegedly due to (hem under a sharemilking agreement. Evidence was given by Harris and Concilia to the effect that defendant had approached them on the night of October 31st and asked them to go .sharemilking for him. He wanted them to start on November Ist, but Harris was unable to do this as lie had business to attend to. It was agreed, however, that Conchie should start on the Ist and that Harris would commence as soon as he was able, Easton, in the meantime agreeing to lend Conchie. two men to help with the milking. Harris asked Easton for a written agreement, but this was refused, the partners being told by defendant that he was not in the habit of giving written agreements. The agreement that was come to verbally, however, was that until Harris could start, Easton was to lend them two men; that they were to receive one-third of the cream and butterfat cheques and half the pigs and calves. Harris started three days after Conchie and for some time they made repeated requests to defendant for a valuation of the pigs, but this had not been forthcoming and it was on pressing the point that Harris was given notice. Twenty-two calf skins had been sold but the sharemilkers had received no share of this. It was also dated that Easton had deducted from the cream cheque the cream and butterfat delivered during the first three days when Harris was not present. In the claim was an amount for 5/3 for milking plant rubbers which they had found it necessary to purchase during the first month of operations. From the last cheque paid, defendant had .deducted an amount for 32 rubbers which he considered needed renewing, which amount was also part of the claim. A claim was also made for a half share of the pigs, during the period they were working for defendant. They objected to paying half cost of valuation of (he pigs made by defendant and .deducted, from this cheque. Frederick S. Easton, in evidence, said he explained everything to the sharemilkers prior to their starting work. They were told they were on exactly the same footing as his other sharemilkers, and he left them to find out the details of agreement from them. There was no agreement that they should receive half the pigs and calves. His agreement, as obtained with all the other sharemilkers, was that they should receive a half share of all pigs and calves reared by them. He had made no arrangement to lend the plaintiffs two men free of cost. He had to pay the men lfi/- per day and also paid for the electric power used during the first three days. The first notice he had of any trouble had been a solicitor’s letter.

Mr. Ongley : You admit- you refused to put an agreement in writing? Yes none* of my agreements arc in writing. Counsel contended that the tremendous amount of litigation defendant had been subjected Jo was due to not having written agreements.

Cross-examined at some length, defendant stated that Ills ' agreement with all his slmremilkers was that they should get half all pigs and calves reared by them, hut.-any calfskins of calves killed on birth belonged .to him. He had obtained ihe services of an independent pig valuer prior to the sharemilkers leaving. He had charged them with half the cost of the valuation.

In summing up the S.M. said that there had been no written agreement, but a general idea had been given to sharemilkers that they would receive half the pigs and calves and no mention had evidently been made that they would l'eceive half cost of pigs and calves raised by them only. As regarded the third share of butterfat, defendant had taken all the butterfat for the first

three days even though Conchie had worked there all the time. Easton’s men had not worked all day, but just assisted with the milking. He thought £2 of the amount due for the butterfat over that period should go to the plaintiffs. With regard to the pigs, he thought defendant should pay something for the fattening of the pigs on the farm as the position had not been clearly explained. He had previously paid them £2 for fattening nine pigs independent of the claim and on the same basis lie would allow them £3 Os Sd for work done to fatten the pigs in the claim. It was a pity defendant had not explained the position with regard to the calf skins also. If lie had pointed out that they would receive nothing for calves killed immediately on birth it would have been all right, but that hud not been done. The men had killed, skinned and treated 22 skins and lie would allow them 15/- for this work. The half cost of the valuation fee claimed by defendant was reasonable and he would not allow plaintiffs-to deduct this amount. It was also quite reasonable that defendant should charge for renewal of perished rubbers, at the termination of the sharemilking. The 5/3 paid by plaintiffs for new rubbers during the first month of operations would have to be refunded though. The total lie would allow plaintiffs was £6 Os lid with costs £2 13s and he advised defendant in future to clearly show details to his sharemilkers.