Milking on Shares.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7916, 23 September 1904, Page 5

Milking on Shares.

A Disputed Contract.

; At the, S.M. Court, this? morning, be-, fore Mr A. D. Thomson S.M:j Arthur Currie (Mr Baldwin) proceeded against Charles Selby (Mr Cooke)to recover .£7l Ids damages for an alleged breach of contract entered into by the parties relative to an' agreement to milk upon sharesThe agreement set out. that they should millc cows on shares for two years, the ■defendant to provide not less than 40 cows and heifers for the season. Plaintiff had to-provide all labour in connection with the carrying out of. the agreement, and do'all things necessary for the 'proper carrying out of the contract. He was responsible for all damages to stock, plant, etc., through negligence, and in consideration of carrying out the contract faithfully he was to receive fivetenths- of the monthly cheque from the creamery and half the net value of the calves and pigs sold. Of the five-tenths remuneration, four-tenths, was to be paid the plaintiff monthly and the remainder on August loth," on which date the season was completed. The agreement also contained clauses for the termination of the contract.

Mr Baldwin, after detailing the clauses of the agreement, said that defendant represented to the plaintiff that the cows to be supplied by him would come into profit early in the season, the dates being specified. The cows did not come in as stated, and plaintiff consequently failed to obtain the full supply of mjlk he would have obtained. - He also failed to obtain the most profitable sale for his calves and pigs, besides.not being able toikeep the number of the'latter.that he might liave if he had had the necessary millc. Defendant hadalso turned sheep into the paddock allotted to the cows. It was a well-known fact, said counsel, that cows did not do well where sheep were kept, and the milk returns from the factory were produced to show that the milk supply decreased considerably after the sheep were turned in to the paddocks. ■

In his evidence, plaintiff said that when the agreement between them was signed the list of the cows' dates was given him. He understood that defendant had drawn up both the agreement and the list of.the dates. Witness detailed the conversation that had tal^en place between he and the defendant relative to the dates of the cows, but the dates were very far from correct. Witness said he had been milking cows on shares for four seasons previously and had had considerable experience in the matter. Cows calving in the early part of the season',were worth from 22s to 20s per month up till Christmas. For the rest of the season they were not worth so much. The calves had been sold by witness and Mr Selby to MrWhitehead. They had received 80s for the early calves, 20s to 25s for the other calves, • and four late" ones., could not be sold at all. Three-of the latter had died. Sheep -were turned into the cow paddocks, though witness objected' .because he wanted the grass r for the cows. He objected 'particularly in March and April when the cows, instead of going up in their yield, as other cows had, decreased owing to the shortage of feed. "Witness considered he had lost £25 alone in the- decrease of milk through shortage of feed. Had not received any complaints from the defendant as to the way he (witness) managed the business and he was not aware there were any.

Witness was cross-examined as to the dates of the calving of the cows which he complained of and also on the dates kept hy himself for the present season. He admitted that it was a very common occurrence that cows went over their due dates, and he also said it was usual to allow them about a week overtime. Hesaid he was surprised to hear that several cows, whose dates were set down by himself, had not calved to due date. He admitted that defendant had.helped'him during harvest season, and had, also, sledged some peas for him. ■ •-■ :

Ec-examined, witness said that defendant, had certainly helped. in harvest work. He also put on two men to work at his (plaintiffs) expense, and subsequently when witness desired to use the peas ~ defendant objected. Had he,(witness) known the cows were coming in late he would not have entered into the contract.

Eeplying to the S.M., witness said he claimed £6 15s loss on calves, £710s loss on pigs," loss of feed, through sheep, £25, and late calving, £32 10s; total 15s.

Thomas Hall, Pohangina, said an* early calver should not be later than the Ist October. After the middle of October a cow certainly was not an early calver. "Without skim railk a cow should return £1 per month profit. He considered dates of cows could be fairly accurately determined within a week. There was' a considerable difference in the value of early and late calves, quite the difference stated in the present case, 35s and 20s. Thought plaintiff could have kept fully 12 more pigs than he had if the cows had calved to time. There would also be loss through putting . sheep in the cow paddocks; cows would not do well with the sheep. .

S. E. Lancaster said early calvers should not be later than the end of' September. The return from the creamery should be about 20s or 25s per cow.per nionth.. ' " ..„ ..,.' .*.

'The- defence • admitted difference between late and early calves but denied the number of pigs that could have been, kept, also the loss through turning the sheep in with the cows. , _.

; Witness continuing, said he estimated plaintiff should have kept six more pigs, valued at &% than he had. Cows did not do well with sheep and if the milk yield went down, the sheep cpukl be blamed. Witness'cross-examined said that 40 rail lambs would not do much damage on 140 acres as in the present case. :. Ke-examined witness, said he would not put the sheep in with the cows himi self.' -' ' .)-.'..' ■ ■'*•■ ■'■..■'.■•■

Charles Edward Leamington said that he was present when the paper relating- to the dates of the cows' calving was read at the interview between plaintiff and defendant. No qualifying statement as to the calving of the cows was heard by witness.

The evidence of the last witness closed the case for the plaintiff.

The principal defence was that the correctness of the list supplied to the plaintiff was not guaranteed, but he was told that it was as correct as possible to get it. Tlic defendant had, the previous year, been under a similar arrangement to the one entered into with the plaintiff, with a i«an named Bignell, whoso list of dates it was that was supplied to the plaintiff. That fact was told plaintiff ■ before the agreement was signed, L (Left sitting,)