EAST TAMAKI.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 6, Issue 297, 31 July 1917, Page 4

EAST TAMAKI.

The East Tamaki Agent for the Times "is Miss Scorgie and copies of the paper may be obtained from her at the Post Ollico. | SHARE MILKING DISPUTE At the Otahuhu Magistrate's Court last Thursday, before Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M., Albert Turner, of East Tamaki, sued Alfred R Harris, farmer, of East Tamaki, for the sum of £7l alleged to bo due for share of milk cheque, milk bonus, pigs, calves, etc. There was also a counter claim by Harris for £l2 being £24 10s cash lent to Turner and balance for alleged negligence with calves and pigs and damage to cowshed through putting in milking machines and removing them without putting the shed in order. Mrs Turner, wife of plaintiff, stated that defendant had engaged them to do the milking on his farm, the agreement being that they would receive one-third of the milk cheque and bonus, pigs and calves. Defendant had agreed to make his herd up to 50 or 00 cows if they put iu milking machines, but ho had not increased the herd as arranged. She considered that the pigs died of some disease. They had no written agreement with defendant. The calves complained of as having died had to drink from the same trough as the pige and three died of scurvy in the pig paddock and the remainder had been drowned in the creek, Albert Turner, son of plaintiff, stated that ho had attended to the feeding of the calves and had regularly carted milk for them. He also carted milk for the pigs. He had assisted his father to drag calves out of the creek at times. Tho plaintiff gave corroborative evidence, The defendant (Harris) deposed that he engaged Turner to milk his herd of 10 cows. He mado no promise to increase the herd to 50 or GO. He had shown Turner tho cows and Turner accepted the position, lie distinctly told Turner that he would not givo him a share of the bonus. Tho calves had not been properly attended to and the pigs were skeletons. He had agreed to give Turner one-third of the milk cheque, the pigs and calves. He had offered him work on tho farm outside the milking contract During the conversation about Turner getting in machines he told him he did not want machines but if ho (Turner) proved himself a good capable man he would increase tho herd next year but would not increase it that year. 110 had ground ploughed for cropping and did not want to increase the herd that year. Turner had altered the cow bails when ho took out tho machines and he (witness) had to put tho place in tho same condition as it was formerly, as Turner had failod to do so, at a cost of £2. Roy Harris and Mrs Harris gave coiroborative evidence. In summing up, His Worship stated that it was a most complicated case but he thought Tumor was entitled to a share of the bonus. He would award Turner £22 los 8d his share in milk cheque, pigs and calves also 'Js in respect of share of bonus and compensation for upkeep of machines, a total of £o'J Is Bd. On the counter-claim ho would award Harris £24 money lent to Turner and £2 for ieplacing bails in cow shed. Turner would thus receive a nett balance of £o'd 4s Kd, less £7 10s paid at the previous Court.