CLAIM BY A MAORI.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 4, Issue 117, 6 December 1915, Page 4

CLAIM BY A MAORI.

At the Pukekohe Magistrate's Couit on Thursday a dispute over a stumping and clearing contract between Tini lukiri, a Maori < labourer, of Kohanga, and Thomas t Muir, farmer, of Kobanga, engaged i the attention of Mr Page, S.M. The ; plaintiff, Tukiri, was represented by , Mr W. Vallance, and the defendant , conducted bis own case, refusing to j admit liability, claiming that tbe j contract was not completed acccru- , ing to agreement. Mr Vallance submitted the case , on bebait of his client, stating tbat a verbal agreement was made between the parties concerned, whereby plaintiff was to receive 30s ptr acre for stumping and clearing and burning wood on a section ot land. The contract was completed, and when plaintiff approached the defendant fur payment he refused to settle the account and claimed that there still remained a further piece of land in the contract which had to be attended to, and until that was completed be would not pay. Plaintiff relused to go ou with any farther work before being paid for the first contract. Plaintiff gave his evidence which wad LUrprtted by a Maori woman. Plaintiff said that after defendant had shown him over ar.d defined the boundaries of a piece . ot land at Kohanga wbicb required [ stumping, dealing and the logs ; burnt off, he agreed to take tbe contract for 30b per acre. Plaintiff engaged a man to help him and tbe work was completed. He told defendant that be had finished the contract, and a date was iixed to inspect the land, but this was not done until subsequently. Defendant refused to measure' tbe land and asked plaintiff to do another piece of land at £2 per acre, but plaintiff would not argte and aßked for his contract money. The second piece of land shown nim was small, but it would have been difficult to stump, clear snd - burn the logs off it. He asked defendant a second time to measure the property which be bad cleared, , but the request again met with a refusal, and he engaged a yian 8 himself to measure it. The property worked out at four and a half acres He again applied to defendant tor payment, but was ordered to leave the place and not cume back agaii.—Cross-examined by Muir, he said he could not speak English. Defendant paid him for all previuus work he bad done - tor him. He could not remember I. having to replace strainers at e defendant's request, in a fence r which he had erected for him. He never offered the excuse that e he was sick and could not continue d with the stumping. Defendant e and himself visited tbe job and dee tendant passed it. r. Defendant deposed that he had had considerable experience with labourers, and it was the first occasion that be had a dispute with '• a labourer and had appeared in - Court. He showed plaintiff over the land, pointing out all the boundaries, and the price arranged was 30s per acre. It was a long piece of land, wide at one end and tapering away at the otber. Plaintiff Btarted tbe work, bat discontinued shortly after, and witness went to bjs home and asked faim the reason, and he replied, "I'm sick." Plaintiff asked "Why are you digging out your own stamps for, tnen'.'" and plaintiff only laughed. A month later the work c, was not completed. He never passed :- the work and was never on the n ground with Tim a second time. g Plaintiff only made two applications for payment and he was drunk on botb occasions and "kicked" up a row. The job was not satisfactory '• and the area was not completed.— • By Mr Vallance: The portion tbat plaintiff had contracted to stump and dear had since been ploughed. , He was not aware that a Mr ' Armitage had measured tbe ground. Defendant made it lass than four acres. The bush was fallen 40 years aga, and the price, thirty . shillings, was fair, seeing that the stumping was light. He denied asking plaintiff to do an extra two acres. The stumps tbat were left in the ground bumped his plough man off tbe plough three times when the ground was being ploughed. Plaintiff only did the easiest portion ot the j.»b, leaving the hardest. Plaintiff bad wants a all or nothing for tbe work he had y accomplished, but witneea would a. no|t offer h' m anything.—Hy the Magstrate: Since plaintiff left tbe 11 job he had pulled numerous logs n off the giound, ind tbe cost to a abstract the roots lett in the ground would be about £2. 8 The Magistrate remarked tbat the evidence was a little vague oo both sides. Tbe facto, however, appeared to be that the stumping J " was done and the land ploughed. m Judgment would be given for plaiu tiff for four and three-quarter acres at 30s, £7 2s 6d, less £2 10s for the cost of work that remained to - be done, which left a balance ot £4 ' 12s 6d, Court costs £1 Is, soilcitor's fee £1 (3s, and interpreter's fee and expenses 16s 4d.