DAIRY FARM DISPUTE

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4450, 10 May 1930, Page 3

DAIRY FARM DISPUTE

BREACH OF AGREEMENT. S Li ALE.MILKER’S CLAIM. Ai the Palmerston X. Supreme Court yesterday, before Chief .Justice, Hon. Sir Michael Myers, Duncan S. Young claimed £2OO damages for an alleged breach of a sluiremil'kcr’s agreement and £.105 18/0 allegedly due to him from Frederick Spencer Easton, farmer, of Montoa. Mr IT. Cooper appeared for plaintiff and Mr M. B. Bogin for defendant.

According to the statement of claim, on August 26, 1920, Easton engaged plaintiff as a share milker on his farm at Mouton. The employment was to be lor the period of the 1029-1930 milking season, which will expire on .June 30 next. Defendant, it was alleged, agreed to pay Young as remuneration, onetbird of the proceeds from the milk supplied from the farm, and onehalf of the profits from the pigs and calves reared on the farm, and also to allow plaintiff the use of the house and oilier buildings on the farm free of rent. In October, November, and December of last year and January and February of this year, defendant had duly accounted to plaintiff for the amount due to him for milk supplied, but, it was alleged, wrongfully, and in breach of the agreement, deducted certain amounts totalling £22 for labour to which plaintiff was entitled. Defendant had -refused to pay plaintiff one-third of the money received by him for milk supplied, amoLinting to not less than £7O, and also the sum of £l3 2/6, one-half of the amount received by plaintiff for nine [tigs sold from the farm on March 5, 1930. Young was dismissed, allegedly wrongfully, and without any fair and proper notice terminating the agreement. It was submitted that Young had carried out his duties faithfully and well.

Defendant denied that he had engaged plaintiff for the period of the 1929-1930, and stated that lie had engaged him tor an indefinite period subject to.the right of either party In terminate the engagement at a week's notice. Easton stated also thai the. rale o>£ remuneration agreed upon had been subject toe&trc upon had been subject to certain deductions. The sum of 8d in the £.l tor maintenance of drains on the farm was to bo deducted as were all insurances, freight, and cartage and charges for pigs. All sums of money for maintaining the plant on the farm were also to he deducted, were all moneys and wages paid by defendant for work on the farm which should ha|Vc been done by plaintiff. All money deducted front plaintiff’s share of the proceeds of the farm, defendant submitted, had been rightfully deducted in terms of the arrangement between the parties All defendant considered was owing to his share-milker was £26 8/7, made up of £BO 6/7, defendant’s share of proeeds of the farm, less £53 18/- expenses. Defendant denied also that he had wrongfully dismissed plaintiff. Lie had terminated the agreement by giving one week’s notice in writing. He considered he was entitled to terminate the agreement and dismiss plain till on account of the gross negligence of the latter in carrying' out his work. After hearing lengthy evidence, his Honour, in summing- up, pointed out that there had been no stipulated length of notice which had to be given. There was fortunately no conllict of testimony in this case but there was no doubt, that defen* fondant had committed a breach of the agreement in dismissing - Young, fie had evidently been an Angry man in taking this course and he had vented it on plaintiff. Damages would he assessed at £IOO but he would not allow the claim for £22 deductions which he considered defendant had been justified in making. The claim as regarded the other moneys mentioned in the statement of claim, could be considered by the parties. Mr Cooper announced that judgment for £l3O would satisfy both parties and his Honour gave judgment accordingly.