A Milking Contract.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 254, 25 November 1903, Page 2

A Milking Contract.

INTERESTING TO DAIHYMCK) in the S.M. Court on Tuesday Stanford <li.'li\oti-d judgment in Tdrntu cijsc which is of interest IB dairying people. The case urose Out ■ of a clulii; made by J. W. Heal 1 against F. L. Laurent for £99 10*, ■ for breach of a milking agreement.' Laurent put in u counter claim for ' £'Jt> 2s tkl for negligence on the' | part of Heal, who wus milking on [shares for Ivini. The Judgment was, in effect, as follows :" The plaintiff claims the sura 8(£O9 10s from defendant for breeki •i«S an agreement I'd milk on shard* from August, 1902, to September; 11)03. This is made up of variout) items, including one for £SO for breach of agreement. The defendant counter claims £9O 2s (3d in respect of various items. In arriving' nt a conclusion in a case like this, in which each party charges the other with committing breaches of u written agreement, it is necessary first of all to •determine 'what the terms of the agreement are,,and how they should be interpreted, since each party placed a different interpretation on the written woids. First, the words of the agreement are :—Laurent agrees "with the fcuid .lolm Heal to milk uj)on shares not less than 21 cows nor more titan 30, or as many as 'the flat* will cany, on the terms," etc. .... Two questions have uriscn.on this Clause, first whether defendant supplied 21 cows, and if so, when, and secondly, what is the meaning of the word "flat." With regard to the lust question, 1 fittd that up to JXtemher 22nd defendant had supplied 20 cows, and 1 think this was ' a suflicleut compliance with his undertaking, in all similar cases I haw held that to supply the named number of cows it f S not necessary to have them all on tte ground from ' the flrst day of the agreement until the last ; but a reasonable number «t ln-st, and the remainder as the cows calve in the course of nature '.«*!... meun ''ns of the word flat it must be taken to mean the whole of the flat ground on defendant s farm, and cannot be taken to include one part and exclude aa?l J.' 1 ' 1 now determine that l Cn<la,lt Bufllrie ntly complied ' 24 to 30 cows. . . Plaintiff must ons t» % cMm to the ***** of £2B 18s 3. . . . The counter claim sugK^, s on jts face jer matters witt, which it deals would Court brou *' rt court it it had not been for the claim. Defendant would only sue««s wuhout sxi-ra absence was excusable under the uZ Illness" Clrcu,U(rt *»«» of his wif"£ Counsel addressed the Court on the question of costs, which His Worship allows as follows :-On claim : eo If £2 fs' S ';! iCitor **■ <*"* costs £2 18s. On counter claim: Witnesses £3 4s, solicitor £1 1„ Court costs 16s. The totnl amounts of tho luxtaments were :-For the plaintiff/ 7& 18s dd on claim, and £8 costs ; for (Weston and Weston) for defend^