A DAIRYING DISPUTE.

Shannon News, 23 August 1927, Page 4

A DAIRYING DISPUTE.

SHAREMILKER VERSUS PROPERTY OWNER. INVESTIGATION OP ACCOUNTS ON CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM. The greater part of the day was taken up in the Magistrate's Court at Levin on Friday, in the hearing before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., of a case involving the settlement of accounts between a property-owner and his former share-milker, arising out of operations on a-farm at Shannon. A. H. Hill sued H. E. Williams, for whom he had been milking on contract, for £lO2 18s 2d, of which the defendant admitted liability for £6l Us, representing plaintiff's half-share from pigs £43 19s 3d, half-share from calves £l6, and bhare of May cheque for butterfat £1 lis 9d. The balance in dispute was made up of various sums deducted from plaintiff's factory cheques or expended by him in respect of seed, manures, repairs, and other items, comprising the following:—Freight on seed 9s 2d, freight on kerosene £4, scrim for paper* ing 12s, skeith for plough 15s, salt for hay 15s, oils for tractor £5 15s Bd, refund on manure charged £ls, manure purchased £2 14s 9d, refund on seed put in a re-ploughed paddocks £ls 6s Id. The defendant admitted full liability for the item "scrim 125," and half liability in. respect of freight on seed 9s 2d, freight on kerosene £4, and manure purchased £2 14s 9d. ( The defendant put in a counter-claim for £IOO 16s lid, which included work done and money advanced. Mr Moody appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Grant for the defendant. Mr Moody said that, in reference to the claim of £ls for refund of manure charge, the plaintiff contended that the defendant gave him the manure that was in the shed on the farm when Hill went to work on the place. As to the refund claimed for feed, £ls 6s Id, plaintiff contended that the paddock was ploughed without his consent, and that there was quite good feed on it which would have been sufficient for the cows for another month. THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE.

In the course of his evidence, the plaintiff stated that seed for the farm was purchased by the defendant, and plaintiff paid 9s 2d freight on it. Two tons of kerosene were also sent to plaintiff, who paid £4 in freight. He Avas charged 15s for a -skeith for a plough, to replace one broken by a man working under contract on the property. With regard to the charge against him of 15s for salt for hay, plaintiff stated that the defendant was to pay for all stock medicines, and he contended that salt came under this heading. Defendant deducted half the cost of this salt from plaintiff's factory cheque, plaintiff paying 30s for it. The tractor was not mentioned in the agreement. Williams asked him to pay for the general upkeep of the tractor, but plaintiff gave him to understand that he could not afford to do this. Plaintiff, however, paid for oil for the tractor. He was charged £ls as half cost of manure; he did not know which manure was referred to, but as for the manure in the shed, the defendant had said he would not charge him for it. This manure had been damaged by rain, and he had to break it up with a shovel to put it into the drill. Plaintiff purchased some manure from the factory for £2 14s 9d, as he was wanting it urgently, and it was an arrangement between the parties that anything plaintiff required urgently he should get from the factory. Plaintiff was claiming £ls 6s Id for a refund on seed put in a paddock, which paddock, he alleged, had not been pro ; perly utilised. In plaintiff's opinion this paddock had sufficient feed on it at the time when it was ploughed _up at defendant's orders. PLOUGHING OF A PADDOCK. A. small bundle of oats was produced in court as a sample of the feed that was on the paddock when defendant had it ploughed in. Continuing his evidence, plaintiff stated that if the ground had not been turned over, he would have gone on feeding cows on it—he would have shut it up for a week or a fortnight at a time, to secure new growth, and then put the cows on for an hour or an hour and a-half a day; this would go on for ten days or a fortnight, and then he would close it up again. By working it in this way, there would be three months' feed in the paddock. There was very little other feed on the farm, as it was mostly unimproved swampy country. The crop in question was his only stronghold for the cows. His share of the milk cheque was affected by the ploughing-up of the paddock. Cross-examined by Mr Grant, plaintiff stated that his claim for a refund of 9s 2d for freight on seed was in respect of oats and tares for the paddock referred to above. He did not mention the claim until he was leaving and a request was made by defendant for a settlement. He gave notice in May that he was leaving in June. He had used the tractor for ploughing because there was nothing else there for him to use; he asked defendant to put a team on in preference to the tractor. Plaintiff was claiming the whole of the freight that he paid on the kerosene; he told Williams he could not afford it and that a share-milker could not run the «ost of using a tractor. Defendant was to provide a team, implements, and harness for work on the farm. He told defendant's son that he (plaintiff) had paid freight on the kerosene. The skeith of the plough was broken by the person using the plough. The only man who used it, to his knowledge, was Reid, one of William's men. Salt was used for putting in the stack of hay. It was not necessary to bale the hay; defendant agree that it should be put up. loose. Salt was not mentioned; but it was customary to put salt in hay when stacking it. There was hay baled when plaintiff went to the property. He spent three days top-dressing with superphosphate. He would not suggest that the manure in the shed was useless,

but it was not of full market value; he would not value it at above half its

original value. He bought some manure because he wanted some fresh fertiliser for turnips; it was special turnip ';-. manure.

Mr Grant: Why did you have that puf

in your account instead of Williams's? Plaintiff: I was in a hurry and did not impress on the man to have it put in Williams's account, and it was charged up to me. In answer to further questions, plaintiff stated that this was in December. He did not send the account on to Williams; he told him he had bought the manure, but he did not say what the price was. It was possible for him to get things like that without consulting Williams. Plaintiff had put in a crop of oats for a summer crop, and it Avas ploughed in about a month before it should have been, by defendant's men. It should not have been ploughed until April or May. On February 28th, defendant sent a letter to plaintiff saying that if the latter did not get on with the Avork of putting in the autumn crops at the back of the farm, he would have it done at plaintiff's expense. That was the first intimation plaintiff had that defendant Avanted this done. He was astonished at receiving the letter. James Campbell, avlio had been working for plaintiff, stated that the back paddock of oats and tares Avas fed to ,he cattle for a few days, and after that the paddock Avas ploughed up by Keid, in employee of defendant. On the farm generally feed Avas scarce; there Avas only the back paddock to depend on, and it could have been used for another .month, AA-ith spells. George Ernest Armstrong, farmer, of Ihakara, stated that he visited the place where plaintiff Avas Avorking, in February and March. He saAV the back paddock Avhen a start had been made with the ploughing. It Avould have been suitable for feeding, the crop of oats and tares being about a foot high. It should have lasted for a month or six weeks for occasional feeding to coavs. It Avas usual to plough and soav before the end of April, but Avhere there Avas little feed on the rest of the farm, as in this case, it Avould have been advisable to carry on feeding longer on this paddocks. To Mr Grant: A lot of ploughing had been done on the back part of the farm before a start Avas made on the oats paddock.

THE DEFENCE. . Mr Grant stated that on May 2nd Hill gave notice that he Avould be leaving the farm on June Ist. On June 20th he sent in his account, Avithout any explanation,, after the defendant had forwarded his statement. Hill put the first crop in the back paddock, and the defence asked that he pay half the cost of the seed. The question arose as to what feed the plaintiff would have got off that annual crop of oats. At the end of February it Avas natural that an oat crop should be getting Avell doAvn to stubble. The defendant claimed that Hill Avas not entitled to say hoav, after using the feed, that he . Avanted the money back. The kerosene for the tractor came in tAV*o lots of one ton each, and the freight on one lot Avas charged to the share-milker by arrangement. Defendant Avas quite prepared to pay half the freight on the kerosene. As to the plough, defendant contended that plaintiff had been using it and had to have it mended, and plaintiff Avas charged half the cost. Regarding salt for the hay, defendant's attitude Avas that, instead of being baled up and pressed, the hay should be put into a stack, and it Avas necessary to put salt in Avith it. This Avas not salt for medicinal purposes, but for making hay. As to the oils for the tractor, defendant had not had any details; also, Avith regard to the manure purchased by plaintiff, defendant did not knoAV, till this case came on, Avhat it Avas for. If the manure had been charged to Hill by mistake, the natural thing for him to do Avas to tell the Dairy Co. that it should have been charged to Williams. In reference to the manure that Avas in the shed, plaintiff Avas not being charged half the cost price, but half of an amount equal to about tAVo-thirds of its original price. - Herbert EdAvard Williams, the defendant, stated that he Avas the OAvner of a farm of 280 acres on which plaintiff wiu share-milking last season. When Hill went on to the farm there Avas some manure in the shed, of Avhich defendant gave him a tally. There were three tons of super Avhich had cost £7 per ton, and three and a-half tons of Ephos, Avhich coat £6 15s a ton. The arrangement Avas that half the cost of the manure Avas to be paid by each party. Eight bags of manure Avere nowleft in the shed. When plaintiff took the farm over, the manure had been in the shed about three months. The bags in Avhich the super Avas contained Avere in rather a bad state, but all the maiflires JAvei'e all right. Defendant charged Hill for the manure at £ls, half of an estimated value of £3O. Hill did not Avant to use manure, saying that the [ farm Avas a rich one and did not rej quire it. The manure was used for topdressing. Witness charged plaintiff £ls 6s Id for seed Avhich plaintiff put in, and the latter raised no objection Avhen the deduction Avas made from his cheque. The crop Avas a good one. Later defendant Avanted the paddock I ploughed in order to put in Avinter feed; it had only stubble on it, and the thing to do Avas to grass it for the winter. Defendant did not charge Hill anything for the ploughing of that paddock, as he did not Avant to be hard; he let Hill off a good many charges. After Hill left, defendant sent him a satement of accounts. Plaintiff Avanted to use the tractor in preference to horses, but he found that i it Avas becoming expensive, so defendant consented to buy half the kerosene. Hill used tAA'ice as much kerosene as an experienced driver Avould have done. Defendant put a neAv skeith ojn the plough to replace a broken one, and charged it to plaintiff, avlio made no objection. To Mr. Moody.—Defendant had to put men on to plough the oack paddock, because the plaintiff would not do it and defendant could not force him to do it, although. the agreement provided that he should. With reference to the sample of oats produced in court, defendant saAV nothing like it on the paddock in question. Salt Avas put in the hay to preserve it; this Avas not ahvays done in hay-making. Archibald Eeid, Avho was a contractor for defendant ion the farm, stated that there Avas a big stack of manure in the shed Avhen he Avas there, and plaintiff used some of it for top-

dressing. Witness used the mouldboard plough, but did not break the/! skeith. When he Avent to plough the back paddock in March, it only contained stubble. Hill said he would plough one paddock if Avitness Avould do the other ,and Avitness started on the oats paddock. After Avitness started the ploughing nobody objected to it.

PARTICULARS OF COUNTER-CLAIM In the afternoon the Court .heard the case on the counter-claim. The sum claimed by the defendant, £IOO 16s lid Avas made up as folloAvs: — Interest and depreciation on milking machines, £23 lis; half cost of valuation of machines, 5s 3d; half cost of cleaning 78 chains of drain from coav yard at 6s per chain (half of £23 8s). £lO 13s; cost of repairing fences and putting same in proper order, £6; halt cost of grass seed for back paddock, (25 acres at 8s 2d), £lO 4s 2d; grazing for tAvo horses from June, 1926, to June, 1927, at 2s per Aveek each, £lO 8s; value of four coAvhides at 15s each retained by the plaintiff, £3; cost of cutting and grubbing goat's rue, £7 4s; advance made by defendant to plaintiff against calves and bonus, £2O; amount over-paid for April £5 0s 6d; three Aveeks' rent or use ana* occupation of the defendant's house at 25s a AA-eek, £3 15s; cost of replacing five panes of glass at 3s each, 15s. Mr. Grant stated that the milking machines belonged to Williams; thej were valued at £llO, and plaintiff Avas to purchase them by instalments. They were to be revalued at the end of the second season and Williams Avould give credit on a re-valuation basis. Hill had not sufficient funds to pay instalments Avhen he Avent on to the place, and none Avere paid during the year. It Avas then arranged that Hill .should pay depreciation on the machines. Mr. Grant also stated that at the time Avhenl Hill entered on the farm, the whole of the fences had been put in good order by a fencing contractor, but nothing Avas done by Hill toAvards maintaining the fences. Plaintiff did a fair amount of cutting of goat's rue, but there Avere certain parts Avhich he left, and it became necessary for Wflliams to put on tAvo men and pay them £7 4s for cutting it. DRAINAGE AND FENCING. The defendant, giving evidence on the counter-claim, stated that the contract Avith Hill commenced on June Ist, 1926. There Avas a provision in the agreement for the milking machines to be purchased by the milker by a series of instalments. Defendant asked plaintiff to clean the drain be-tAA-een his property and Mr. H. Barber's. Plaintiff did not attend to it, and after some time Mr. Barber had the Avork done and charged defendant with a half-share of the cost for 71 chains, his share being £lO 13s. That drain took all the drainage from the coAvshed on defendant's pronerty; MiBarber had no coAvshed draining into it. When Hill Avas leaving, defendant found that a lot of work Avas required on the fences, and defendant asked him if he would have it done. Plaintiff replied that he Avould not do any more fencing. Hill said he had hung tAvo gates, but had not done any repairing to the fences. The charge of £6 Avas a reasonable estimate of the cost of repairing the fences; defendant based it on tAvo weeks' Avork at £3. The claim for grass seed for 25 acres had reference to the seed put in after the oat stubble Avas ploughed under. The agreement provided for the share-milker paying half the cost of that seed. Hill did not get any of the benefit of the resulting grass; it Avas ready to graze after he left. If Hill had continued on the place, he Avould have had the benefit of that grass this season. Plaintiff had the right to graze one horse, but had three on the farm, to the best of defendant's knoAvledge. Defendant had cah'es for meat, killing them as they matured. He told Hill that he Avould give him half the meat from the steers killed, and kept the other half and the hides. Hill was a pretty good tanner, and offered to tan the hides if he Avas alloAved to keep half the number. Defendant understood that the leather Avas available, but he could not get in touch with Hill in order to obtain it from him, and so he charged Hill for the hides. Defendant had notice from his neighbours to cut goat's rue. There Avas to be a refund by Hill of an advance on calves and bonus, but this not been paid back. Rent of the house was being charged to Hill for three Aveeks at 25s a week. Thei house Avas let for that figure before defendant had Jiare-milkers on the property. Defendant had repaired AvindoAvs, repapered Avails, and done a lot of other work, to make the house comfortable for Hill.

Under cross-examination, defendant stated that he did not agree that the drain serving his property and MiBarber's Avas Avholly on the latter's property. He requested Hill to clean the drain, A\ r hen notice Avas, received from Barber concerning it. Defendant did not think that plaintiff refused to do it, but that he just let the thing drift. When he Avas leaving the place he refused to clean the drain.

Harold Barber, a neighbour of Williams, stated that an understanding existed that each Avas to pay half the cost of cleaning a certain length of drain. Witness cleaned it recently and rendered an account for half the cost to Williams.

Harry Williams, son of the defendant, gave evidence as to clearing goat's rue on the farm this year. Herbert William KnoAvles, Avho had been Avorking on defendant's property, stated that he practically reneAved most of the fences on the land on Avhich Hill Avas subsequently farming. He put in four or five months, putting the fences in good order, and the majority of them Avere all right AA'hen he left. Archibald Reid stated that plaintiff did a lot of work on drains on the farm, but he did not see him doing anything to the drain between Williams's and Barber's.

QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION

Mr Moody, before calling evidence, stated that there was no- definite 1 agreement as to purchasing the mliking machines. There was a provision to this effect in the former agreement, but it was never carried out. There

appeared to be a sufficient agreement cancelling the arrangement, and providing that, instead of purchasing the machines, the plaintiff should haA'e possession and pay depreciation and interest on the machines. The agreement set out that the sharemilker should clean all drains once a year, referring to the land OAvned by Williams. Plaintiff was under the impression that the dividing drain Avas on Barber's land. The agreement said that the sharemilker Avould keep the fences in repair. This" presumed that the fences Avere in repair AA'hen the milker AA'ent there. Mr Johnston, a fencing contractor, would tell the court that all the fences Avere not in order, and that he Avas put off before his Avork Avas completed. With regard to the charge for half the cost of grass seed for the back paddock, that Avas for a permanent pasture, which, under agreement, Avas not chargeable to the share-milker.

In giving evidence, plaintiff stated that AA'hen he first entered *into possession, he mentioned to defendant that he considered it his place to provide the milking machines. They disagreed about it, but in order that they should get on Avell together plaintiff Avaived the point. After entering on the place to milk 45 coavs by himself, in the expectation that the machines Avould help him out, he Avas disappointed. He sat doAvn to milk the 45 eoAVs, and at 10 o'clock Williams came along and expressed surprise that plaintiff Avas milking by hand. Plaintiff then acquainted him Avith the fact that the machines Avere not fit to be used, and suggested that he have them put in order. There Avas no settlement as to the repairs; but mention Avas made of a valuation. A valuer came doAvn, to put the machines in order, and he valued them. Plaintiff inquired about the valuation, but had not received information on it yet. WOULD NOT GO ON NEIGHBOUR'S FARM.

When defendant spoke to him about the drain betAveen his place and Barber's, plaintiff said he Avas not to attend to that drain. There Avas an incident connected Avith Barber's property, in that the last time he Avent on to it he had a double-barreled gun pointed at him and Avas ordered off. He understood all through the piece that the drain Avas on Barber's land. Williams told plaintiff that Barber Avas complaining about the stuff that Avas going from the eoAV-shed into the drain. In order to abate the nuisance, plaintiff put iii a cess-pit. He considered that 6s a chain Avas a very liberal payment for cleaning out that drain. Mr Barber made a better job of his drains than a good many people Avould. To carry out the Avork as Mr Barber had done, plaintiff Avould be prepared to take 3s 6d a chain. Some of the fences Avere in very bad order AA'hen he took the place over. He put stockin certain paddocks, and the next day they Avere all back again. He said to Williams, "The fences Avon't hold atock," and Williams engaged Johnston, a fencing contractor. Plaintiff understood then that all the dilapidated fences Avere to be put in order. Plaintiff had tAvo horses on the farm all the time, and a third Avas brought on Avhen there Avere busy times, such as hay-making. He told defendant that he Avas quite prepared to Avork his horses for the right of running them on the place, and defendant said he Avas quite agreeable to that. Plaintiff and his man Avere engaged in cutting goat's rue for six Aveeks, except for a few broken days. In spite of the grubbing, it came up again very quickly. Cross-examined, plaintiff "stated thaf he told Williams that he had been threatened Avith a gun and that Avas Avhy he did not go on to Barber's property. Evidence Avas giA-en by James Campbell as to the plaintiff patching the fence on the turnip paddock sufficiently to hold out stock. Alfred Ernest Johnston, contractor, stated that he Avas employed by Williams last year to do some Avork on the farm. Just as Hill A\ r ent in, Avitness Avas to do fencing there. Williams shoAved him the fences that needed attention; they Avere lying on the ground. Witness Avas to put up the fences that AA'ere doAvn; there Avas one that he did not erect.

This concluding the evidence, Mr Moody 'briefly addressed the Court and submitted that there Avas no definite contract that could bind the parties in regard to the milking machines, but his client Avas prepared to pay a certain amount. As to the tractor, the agreement stated that horses Avould be supplied, but the parties agreed that the tractor Avould be used instead of horses.

His Worship said there Avas a large mass of e\'idence to be gone into, and the agreement had to be read carefully, so he Avould reserve his decision.