SHAREMILKING DISPUTE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4480, 19 July 1930, Page 3

SHAREMILKING DISPUTE.

i LOICIAL RESIDENTS AT VARIANCE. •Several hours of the Magistrate’s time was taken up in the venitillation of a claim and counter claim by two local residents in a sharemilking dispute at the local Court sitting on Thursday when C. J. Sa- * tberley sought to recover from S. J. Easton £44 2/9 allegedly due him while Easton on his paid, coun-ter-claimed the sum of £43 7/8. •Satherley’s claim was as follows: —Half share of hntterfat supplied! during- Decem'her-Ma.rch,

1930: £25 6/10; half pigs: £lO 18/7; half 8 “slips” at 30/- each : £(»; half sow at £5: £2 10/-; a total of £44 15/5, less 12/8 for electric current, reducing- the amount to £44 2/9 as stated.

Easton’s counter-claim was made Up as follows:—‘Damages for failure to erect fences and open up drains in accordance with agreement: £l3 10/-; half share in motor lorry: £l7; half cost of repairs to same: £7 5/8; value one heifer: £4; four tins benzine: £1 12/-; a total of £43 7/8.

•Mr. Ongley appeared for Easton and Mr. M .'B. Bergin for.Satherley.

In outlining the case at some length, Mr. Ongley said his client did not dispute ithe claim except Tn regard to -the last two items. The S.M.: I presume, as usual, there was no written agreement. iMr. Ongley: That is so. Sidney John Easton, in evidence, said that he owned a farm near Poxton which he had used for fattening 'bullpcks until Satherley, who at the time, was engaged on the Easton Estate, approached him at the end of last October and suggested that he covert it into a dairy farm and engage him as a share-

milfcer. He had not been anxious to do this as he had not previously had any experience of dairying nor did he fancy it. However, he agreed to start Satherley on the farm and to take up dairying. Satherley ■agreed to take a half share in a lorry he owned at £l7. Witness was to provide the land and purchase the cows but agreed to engage Satherley on half shares. He also agreed : to give him a hand in putting the property in order. He agreed to these liberal terms because certain fences had to be shifted, drains opened up, pig runs built, styes erected, etc. Satherley could not cany out all these works himself and a. man named Tatana was put on to assist him. He made ho arrangement with witness at all in regard to this extra labour, but after he had started on the farm he sent Tatana up to ask witness if he would employ him. This he agreed to do and paid his wages. Satherley started on the 21st No-

vember and cheques paid for milk

up to IMaxieh were as follows:— November, £4 14/-; December, £29 3 9/6, January £4l 13/-; February, £47 2/6'; March, £52. Satherley was supposed to pay for benzine and oil used and brooms and brushes, etc. When he first started work on the farm lie was still engaged by the Easton -Estate and was receiving 13/- a day for his work on that property. During January Satherley assisted in hav-

making operations and on 23rd March billed witness at the rate of 2/- an hour for this work to-

gether with a similar charge for fencing which witness paid. Mr. Bergin: "Why did you pay him for that work. Witness: He rushed me for it. He was hungry. Continuing, witness said 'Satherley left the farm on the 23rd March. He was to receive half the pi'oceeds from the pigs on the farm, witness having bought 15 good “slips” for which Satherley sent him a cheque for £7 in March. Witness also bought a sow hut Satherley had no share in this end the animal was never on the property. When Satherley left the tarm he did not have the pigs valued but sent witness a bill for seven at £3 9/- and another eight Valued at £1 10/- each. Three of these pigs were weak in the hindquarters while'Satherley was on the

farm anil two subsequently died, the other weak one going away with the remaining six. The six pigs realised £lO 17/2 'when sold, the one-being rejected. Witness however, had had to feed the pigs from March 31st to May 21st and considered 2/- a week per pig a failcharge for feeding. Satherley did no fencing on the pi*operty as a*

greed /and the amount of £l3 10/-

claimed was for the failure in this » coimeetion and one half of Tatana’s wages. With regard to the motor lorry. This was in good running' order at the time the agreement was made and Satherley agreed to take a half share in it at £l7. He bent the front axle during the time lie had it and two new tyres were put on the vehicle as well •as a steering gear stay. He was supposed to use the lorry for carting cream to the depot but iu addition to this he drove it to the Beach. The lorry was now in the shed ou the Easton Estate and had not been used since Satherley left. The day he gave notice, he smashed the tail board and rear light and took the vehicle to a local garage for repair. rang up and instructed the garage proprietor to hold the vehicle which he did, subsequently Refusing to alljow Tatana to take it away when he called for it. The heifer was taken away from the farm by Satherley and was from one of the best cows. Satherley took it to his place shortly after the cow calved, reared it with milk: from witness’ own /cows and never brought it back. He had nothing to do with the co ws, the stock all belonging to witness. •With regard to the benzine. This was obtained from the Easton Estate and used to run the; cream io

the depot. Witness did not know that -Satherley was obtaining the benzine from this quarter until he questioned Tatana one night, and on ascertaining where Satherley was getting llie benzine from he instructed Tatana to tell him to buy his own.

Cross examined by Mr. Bergin, witness said that he had agreed to leave the management of the farm to Satherley with the exception of the cows. Satherley had first 'been engaged to work on the Easton Estate at 13/- a day. Mr. Bergin asked why witness •laid Satherley £2B 9/9 in November and lie said that it was wages due in connection with work done on the Easton Estate and his portion of the sharemilking cheque amounting to £4 odd. He started Satherley on the farm with eight cows in 'November and gradually increased the herd until finally there v;ere sufficient cows there to warrant 'Satherley taking up his work on the farm. As soon as Tatana went on Satherley commenced the work on the farm assisted by witness. He was not then working for the Easton Estate or witness, but' himself. Tatana was then sacked and 'Satherley sent him to witness with a request that lie engage him. This llie did. Satherley had lo put the whole .114 acres in order and witness did not agree to work with him. There was plenty of fencing material on llie farm. Witness gave Satherley orders as to what to do when he first started, telling him to subdivide the farm but lie spent a good deal of time driving about it: the lorry. He could not give him notice as he would have been left in a hole. The benzine was obtained unknown to' him. He couldn’t say when hut he had asked his nephew who said Tatana had had four tins. The lorry was used to cart cream; and not rushes and posts in putting llie farm in order. It had been used only, once sinre Satherley left. Witness bought -fifteen pigs and a sow for £lO and gave Satherley a, half share in the “slips” only for £7, as witness had to do' all the ratering. Did not know that Satherley had the

igs valued on leaving. Admitted Mr. Liggins, a buyer, had rung him up about pigs but he had said there were none ready. Satherley took the heifer to rear for witness. Three calves in all were reared on the farm and Satherley had no interest in them. Denied giving him the calf. No mention had been made of the heifer in the fp*st counter-claim on 3rd May because witness then thought the animal was still on the farm. To Mr. Ongley: The calf was born on the estate. 'Satherley never asked for it nor was he given

This concluded the evidence in connection with the counter-claim and Mr. Bergin reviewed his client’s claim.

Clifford W. Satherley, share-mil-ker, said that he approached Easton on the matter of share-milking on" the property in October. He agreed to give him half the profit on the cows, and half pigs. It was also agreed that until sufficient cows were purchased witness should remain on at the Easton Estate but also carry on the share-milking work. The property was bare and Easton agreed to do the whole place up and pay witness for doing the work. Tatana and Easton assisted in putting the place in order and Eastoji paid Tatana’s wages as he was employed by him. Witness repaired a boundary fence, erected Houghs, laid on water, stacked and thatched fifty tons of hay and built pig runs as far as materials permitted. There was no contract to subdivide the property or carry out draining work. These were merely suggested as improvements to the farm by witness to Easton. No fencing material was supplied and no instructions received in this connection. The work on the farm was left solely to witness. On November 27th, Easton asked witness !o take a half share in the lorry when he said he would consider the matter. On March 22ud when again asked, he refused. Easton then noticed the cracked tail hoard and said, “Who does this lorry belong to?” Witness replied “you,” and Easton said “ltight. You can get out.” Witness first used the lorry when he started on the farm on 18th .February but previously to that Tatana had driven the vehicle in carrying out wo ilk ou the farm for Easton. He had never obtained any benzine from the Estate but purchased his supply from the Shannon Dairy ICo., which was proved by the documents submitted. Easton refused to rear any calves on the farm. Witness did not like destroying' calves from good cows and asked Easton to save the heifer in cpiestion. . He said witness could do what he liked with if as as far as lie was concerned no calf was worth rearing. He gave the calf to his .children as a pet. The two others he reared had been left ou the farm. * Easton agreed to give him a half share in the pigs. He paid him £7 for his share of the woannrs and sow 1 purchased for £lO. Easton made no comment on receiving the cheque. On -March 28th witness had a buyer look at the pigs. He valued the eight slips •at 31)/- each and the sow at £5. The reason for the sow never coming on to the property was that it had been fallow at the time of purchase and later it had been impossible to move her on account of a Hood; the animal being at Poroutawhao.

To Mr. Onglev: Saw Easton on March 31st but he would not listen to him when he spoke of valuing the pigs on handing over the keys of the farm. All he . said was that witness did not own anything. When engaged as a sbaremilker it was arranged that he should still go on working for ;tbe Easton Es-

tale until the herd was procured. II was the usual practice for sharemilkers lo take cream to llie depot in the owner’s conveyance, the sharemilker to hear -a. portion of the upkeep of same. The lorry was only taken to the 18-each once and then driven by Tatana. Never arranged for Easton to take over the pigs or sell them on leaving because he would not listen to witness. Later sent a registered account to Easton in connection with the pigs. The heifer was reared on some of ,the farm milk, half of which belonged to witness and also on some supplied by a neighbour. To Mr. Bergin: Mr. Easton was the manager for the Easton Estate. The account for the pigs was sent on April 3rd.

Jack Tatana tendered evidence to llie effect that lie hud been engaged by Easton before Satherley was on the property. He used to drive llie lorry and later assisted preparing the farm. Before Satherley took over the farm and used the lorry iie carted the cream to the depot on his bike. Easton instructed him to gel' the benzine from the Estate, and he only got one tin. ITe heard llie argument over the lorry and corroborated Sa.lherley’s evidence in Ibis connection.

To Mr. Ongley: Had obtained benzine from the Estate before So - Iherley took over the farm. Remembered Easton telling him to- tell Satherley to buy his own benzine. Percival Bangs, farmer, of Poroutawbao, said Easton purchased the sow and litter from him for £l6. A cow at £l3 figured in the deal and only £3 cash was paid. The sow was not removed from the property* owing to tiie flood and was then left to go to the hoar again. 'Samuel Liggins, pig buyers, tendered evidence as to having inspected pigs on the farm about the end of March. He rang Easton up and offered him a price but lie refused to sell.

In summing up the S.M. said that point one concerned the removal of the fences and opening up the drains which had not been carried out- all hough Easton claimed for an amount in this connection. It was developmental work and he doubted if •Satherley would have had time to do it. Even if he bad the onus was on the owner to have the work carried out without expecting payment. It had not been arranged for. Evidently the arrangement was for gradual development, and while this was going on Satherley was to receive a day wage of 13/- to work on the farm and Easton Estate, besides getting a half share of the milk cheque. Easton had not substantiated that .point. Point, two referred to the lorry. He did not think Satherley agreed to take a half share but under the circumstances it was only equitable that lie should pay half the cost of repairs as he had the benefit of the new tyres, etc. Half cost of the repairs would be allowed. Point three concerned the heifer and four tins of benzine. The heifer appeared to be a gift and Easton was not entitled to recover the animal now. As far as the benzine was concerned, Tatana said he got one tin. Easton said four tins were taken, hnt was only going* on something- his nephew said. That was not sufficient for the Court to 'act on and tlie claim would be refused. As far as the pigs were concerned he !bought Satherley really did buy a half share in the sow. He was entitled to £7 8/7 for the pigs but Easton was entitled to something for keeping them but not as much as lie had asked. He would allow him £3 3/- in this connection. Judgment was accordingly given for .Satherley for £33 12/- with costs £5 5/-.