SHARE-MILKING DISPUTE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXX, Issue 21, 29 April 1916, Page 3

SHARE-MILKING DISPUTE.

| OSBORN V. MCDONALD BROS. " DECiSION RESERVED. At the Stratford Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon Henry Harvey OsI born (.Mr P. O'Dea), claimed £22 (is Sd | from Thomas McDonald and Michael 1 McDonald (Mr .1. 11. L. Stanford), lor 9 part miJk cheque and part proceeds of I pigs and carves. The claim was confessed. McDonald Bios, counter-claim-ed for £42 I7s 6d 'as damages lor > breach of agreement to stump, clear, i and sow in turnips 10 acres of Kind. In outlining the case Mr Stanford 1 said McDonald Hies, owned a farm I an the Robson Road. The defendants I met plaintiff in Stratford in August,, 1 and a verbal agreement was entered inI to for tlie plaintiff to milk on shares I lor the defendants. The arrangements. 8 also included the stumping of ten acres, ploughing and sowing of swede turnip seeds before January. Osborn was offered 50 per cent., which was 10 per ' cent, more than the usua] amount paid to share milkers in the district. Michael McDonald said when they met Osborn they arranged that he should milk 30 to 35 cows, stump about ten acres and plant turnip seeds, for which be woidd receive 50 per cent of the milk cheque, and hall' of proceeds of the calves and pigs, witness to supply the.seeds and manure, lie arranged for Osborn to go down the next week. Xp written'.agreement was entered into. When he saw Osborn In Oeeemberdio was informed that he had live acres' ready for sowing down. Tie .purchased the necessary seeds'and told him to go' and get ihe manure from" the homestead. ' When he visited the farm ' a fortnight later lie found that the. land had not boon ploughed. Osborn said * lio could not got a man to plough the land. He said ii' Ho loaned him a jhorso he would do the ploughing himself. ''Only two and it-half acres was stumpedWhen he found that the land had not been sown he arranged to have the land stumped and sown with sol', turnips before March 17. He told Osborn that on February 20 he would give him the amount from the cheque and pay liini nothing more until lie did the work. On March 15 he again visited the farm and found that practically no more land had been made ready for ploughing. Out of the ton acres which j plaintiff promised to stum]), he only did about two and a-half or three acres. This year witness was paying £6 |oa ' per acre for stumping. In answer to a question from, the Magistrate. Mr O'Dea said plaintiff denied having agreed to stump urn acres, but to do as much as he could.

Mr O'Dea asked witness what the cons would bring in each during (he season. It was agreed that £lO was a fair average. Witness was further asked if as Osborn received £175 for his share, was it fair that ho should do £O.O or £7O worth of'stumping. Witness said Osborn was paid 10 per cent. more than usual. . Witness had made the agreement with Osborn. Mr O'Dea asked witness if .he had offered 50 per cent, because there was a scratch herd on the property. Witness replied that that was not so, but because they wanted the stumping done. Thomas McDonald corroborated the. evidence of .Michael McDonald. The herd was a fair one. if Osborn was dissatisfied with a cow be only bad to turn it out and get another one. There were plenty of springers on (he back of the farm. Osborn never complained about any of the cows. N O. F. Osborn, manager for McDonald

I Bros., and brother of plaintiff, related ; a conversation with his brother regarding the agreement in August of last year. His brother said be was agreeable to the proposal but wished to in- , spect tiie farm first. A week' later he again saw his brother who agreed to igo oil the farm a few days later. In November lie visited the farm in company with the McDonald Bros, and he noticed very little stumping done. He talked to his brother in company witii his employers, and plaintiff: told him he ! would get on with the. Work as -soon as he could. .i i\. In answer to Mr. O'Dea, witness said | when he told his brother of the position he tqhl him of 'the ten acres 'of stumping that had to be doneU • Plaintiff said he had only to do as much as he could. One of the Me- , Donald's said he hud to do ten acres, j but his brother said Ids'agreement was | to do what he no nior«;w,.'»s-said'-about the matter. Witness had. i .before that told the plaintiff that ii' lie had not got the money to.pay the men for the stumping lie would lind it for him. ! Walter Hawke, Stratford, said he : bad had several years experience in I stumping. He knew the ground in. dis.- : pute, and had taken it at £0 10s for ten acres. The plaintiff came to him before Christmas and offered him £i : per day. William Henry Harris said he did three acres,.of jil/Jugfr}»Bß fpr^pla|«v : i|i' and was pa)fl f .L'.'k (id, at fis per acre for 4J acres. Tie l stumping was worth to per ;\i-ve or more. Osborn asked him in November l I to'dp the stumping., but,he said be I j could not do it. That ended the case ; for the' ,, r ~ j | Henry < share milkeiy p,vid fie whs f||iMcDonald.iJfwW ng)TH"f i)t< I of Ist' turned ton acres foiKlfe' Wftijijpangpifei he did (not agree r u\]\U',. W'itnox.s it was too much, and a.man could'not do impossibilities. Defendant said quite so, and witness said he would do j wdiat he could and that it would be -' all right. In the Broadway conversa-

tion it was agreed to share everything. Witness did tkrej} acres .of suinrp^p^. He only had .about three to three audi a-bh'lft hours per ; d.?}[ in the, busy se:v-| Son. Xo lime was stated for the j stump'ing, but it should have been tin-( islied by the middle of January. In[ December McDonald, .saw witness,- and/ said ho was not getting on very fast with the stumping, and- lie would heback in a week, and if tilings did not improve he would take the cows away. Witness said his agreement was to do the best he ecmUL McDonald said he would draw lip an 'agreement for plaintiff to sign.' McDonald never asked him to go and sign it, and if there had been a clause re stumping ten acres he would not have gone on with it. Cross-examined by Mr Stanford,.witness said ho did the best lie could. He could not, explain why he had employed labor when he only agreed- to do what he could himself. -The Magistrate reserved Ids decision till next Court day. j