SHARE MILKING DISPUTE

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 7, Issue 360, 15 March 1918, Page 2

SHARE MILKING DISPUTE

Question of Deferred Payments At the Waiuku Magistrate's Court on Friday last, before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., John Moorby, of Waiuku, share-milker, claimed from Henare Kaihau. of Waiuku, farmer, the sum of £73 17s, being two-fifths share of the sum of £lB4 12s 6d, being s]d per lb retained by the N.Z. Dairy Association and subsequently paid to defendant. Mr Dickson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Ostler for defendant. Mr Dickson read out the terms of the agreement in which one clause appears, viz., "the share-milker shall receive two-fifths of factory cheque." He went on to say that up till two years ago, the N.Z. Dairy Association had paid a certain amount per lb monthly for butterfat, and at the end of the year paid two bonuses, the quantity bonus and the shareholder's bonus. During the last two seasons, however, the NZ. Dairy Association had done away with the bonus and had paid on the average Is 4d per lb during all the season, and had deferred 5Jd per lb as a contingency, owing to war risks. As all the butter had been safely disposed of, the Dairy Association had paid out the deferred payment of 5Jd per lb in three instalments, in August, November and January, paying respectively l£d, 11 ■], and I|i per lb, when the assessments had been made. The sharemilker took on his contract for a season, and therefore the two-fifths share of the factory cheque should mean of the moneys received for cream supplied during all the season, as in reality the Dairy Association paid Is 9|d per lb for the butter-fat, but 5] d was deferred for war risks, and other contingencies, therefore the plaintiff was entitled to the twofifths share.

The plaintiff deposed that when the agreement was drawn up, he had no idea that the " factory cheque " meant anything but the moneys for the whole season. He had not seen the old agreement between the previous sharemilker and Mr Kaihau, from which his agreement had been made.

Mrs Moorby, wife of the plaintiff, gave corroborative evidence.

Several witnesses who had been sharemilker? gave their opinion that by " factory cheque " they had always taken it to mean, " the whole of the moneys supplied by the factory to the suppliers for the season." Mr Ostler, for the defendant, said that in his clients previous agreement with a sharemilker there had been a clear distinction between the factory cheque and the bonus, but in this agreement, the clause had been specially omitted, because in the former one, the sharemilker had agreed to cut the gorse on the farm, and ploughed 20 acres of land for turnips, but as the plaintiff could not do this work, Mr Kaihau had therefore instructed his clerk to word the agreement to mean only " monthly cheque," as he had had to pay a man to do the work, and therefore he thought Mr Moorby was not entitled to the share of the bonus, or, as it is now called, the deferred payment. When making the agreement, Mr Briggs had stated that he read the agreement out to Mr Moorby and explained to him that Mr Kaihau did not intend to give him the share of the bonus. Several witnesses were called on to give evidence showing that as regards share-milking the " factory cheque " meant simply the " monthly cheque." His Worship, in summing up, found that the issue of the case would depend on what was the meaning of " factory cheque," and deferred his decision.