ALLEGED BREACH OF AGREEMENT

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 523, 16 April 1920, Page 2

ALLEGED BREACH OF AGREEMENT

FARM OWNER AND SHARE MILKER IN COURT.

A\ T AKA AKA DISPUTE

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., Edward Carroll, farmer (Onewhero). formerly share-milker at Aka Aka for defendant, proceeded to recovo from John Shaw Rutherford, farmer, Epsom. Auckland. £lO5 10s <V>d, two-fifths of milk suppliers' bonns received bv defendant. Mr. Percy H. Baslev appeared for plaintiff and Mr. J. L. Conlan for defendant.

The claim was admitted. Mr. Rutherford counter-claimed (.04 5s on the grounds that plaintirl agreed with the defendant by agreement in writing" to keep in a thoroughly clean state all utensils, cowshed," calf-house, pigsties and MI drains around and leading from the same, also to keep in good repair the yard, ,pig iun and all manure collected in the cleaning out of the yards, pens and sheds, etc., to be deposited on the fields adjacent, and spread, and to keep in good order and condition all fences and gates, and all drains to be properly cleaned. The defendant claimed that plaints had not carried out the terms of the agreement with the defendant, and the defendant claimed as follows: The cost of repairing the fences and gates repaired or still to be repaired, and cleaning out drains, £47; the cost of replacing milk cans allowed to get rustv, K4 15s; cost of carting out manure) £10; the cost of renewing panes of five windows in house broken at 10s per pane, £2 10s. 'Jo- ' tal £64 ss.

John Shaw Rutherford, farmer, Epsom, said he purchased a farm at Aka Aka from a Mr. Hastings in 1918, and on July 17, 1918. he entered into an agreement with Carroll whereby he was to employ the plaintiff as a share-milker from July 18, 1918, until June 30. 1919. upon the terms and conditions agreed upon. Mi*. Rutherford said that when he took the place over, after Carroll had left, he went over it and found the fences in a state of disrepair, and to put them in repair, to repair gates, and the cleaning of drains would cost about £47. Several milk cans had been neglected through being left cut, and consequently they became rusted. To Replace three cans with second-hand ones cost him £4 15s. Manure, which should have been carted out and spread, was deposited in a round hole near the shed. To cart it out and spread it cost £lO. It cost witness £1 16s to repair windows. He had endeavoured several times to get Carroll to do the work. The cows were well looked after, bat the faiim was neglected and was going back. About two months before the expiry of the contract he wrote to Carroll stating that the contract would not be renewed. Carroll left at the expiry of the term of .contract, but did not attend to the drains or fences. Ho endeavoured to get Cr.r'-'i t • com. to s. mo arrangement about the repairing of the fences, but had failed to do so. To Mr. Basley: It was only possible to make a rough estimate of the cost of repairing the fences. He did not know that two bulls—one belonging to witness and one to a , Mr. Hull-had had a fight and that the fence went down. He did not interrupt Mr. Carroll by getting a mob of cattle from the North and placing them on the farm before the expiry of the contract. The cattle were placed on a farm he had ourchased from a Mr. Given. He did not have the herd milked by Carroll driven from the farm and placed on Given's property before they ar.ei*e-dri-ed off. There was only one cow that had not been dried off, and she was used to supply plaintiff with milk. She was taken down to a Mr. Hodgson's place. He did not go over the place before Carroll left, but did so about a fortnight after, when the new share-milker took the place ever. The new man told him what a heartbreaking job he would have getting the fences and place in order. He supplied Carroll with seve al things but did not supply anything but a keg of staples with which to repair the fences. He did not supply such, because he was not asked. Quite early in the contract he asked Mr. Carroll to sp.rad the manure on the fields nearest the cowshed. He took it that there was 12 months' manure in the hole, but was surprised to know that it was a 10 years' collection. It was a shocking piece of fawning then. He did not remember seeing any panes of glass broken when he took over the house from Mr. Hastings. The fences were not much good when he purchased the farm fi'om Mr. Hastings. The drainage from the cowshed could not get away on account of the drains not being cleaned out. The drainage could not possibly get away to Ihe main drain. To the Magistrate: Mr. Hawkesbury succeeded Mr. Carroll. Frank Ernest Hawkesbury, sharemilker for Mr. Rutherford, said he went on to the place about the middle of June. He put the cattle on the place in the farm acquired from Mr. Given, and the new herd was put on the old farm. About June, 1918, he went over the place and the fences were not in bad repair at all. They were in good order. The whole of the fences appeared to be standing and in good order. When he put

the cattle from the North on the

place he noticed that the fences were not in the same order as they were when he saw them the 12 months before. Some of the cows got -out, and the wii'e was trampled into the ground apparently.for about three months. He was gradually getting the fences in good order .now. Half a day a week may have kept the fences in good order. Alt'. Rutherford's estimates of the cost of repair was very reasonable indeed. Regarding the manu.e, it took throe horses and three men a fortnight to clean out the hole. When he took I the ouso over iheiv was a pane of glass out in each room. The men ;nid horses were not engaged all and I'Veuv day at the manure heap. John Thomas Sweeney, land agent, said he sold Air. Rutherford the farm occupied by Carroll, fhe femes \\e u 'e not in the best of order, but in fair repair. Some of the wires wore down, but none were trampled into the ground. He saw the place some time alter Mil Carroll had gone out, i.nd the fences appeared to have been thoroughly neglected. To the Magistrate: The place was fairlv well kept. 'THK PLAINTIFF'S CASK. In opening his case Mr. Basley said the contract really Was one of employment between master and servant. The reading of the agreement bore out this, together with the fa. t that "failure to comply with the terms of the agreement the penalty was instant dismissal. There was no instant dismissal as Carroll had remained right up to the expiry of the agreement. Edward Carroll, farmer (Onewhe- ■ 10), said he had been share-milking on the Aka Aka for about 10 yeais ' on a farm formerly owned by Mr. ■ Walters. Mr. Rutherford took over ' the farm in the 1918 season, about ] July, from Mr. Hastings. Subse- ' quently Mr. Rutherford saw him and } told him lo cajrry on as usual. He bought from Mr. Hastings the femes ' were only in a fair state of repair. Puior to leaving the property two ,