PIG AND POULTRY PUZZLE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 24, 22 February 1909, Page 3

PIG AND POULTRY PUZZLE.

A LUDICROUS BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT. The reserved judgment in the civil case of William Heappey, labourer, New Plymouth, v. George Taylor and Frank Joseph, butchers, New Plymouth, was .delivered by Mr. H. S. Fitzherbert, S.M., .on Saturday morning. Plaintiff (for whom Mr. C. JI. Weston appeared) sued (defendants (who were represented by 3lr. F. E. Wilson) for £24 15s 5d for wages, half profits in a poultry run, and price of a set of harness. Defendants jiaid £5 into court in satisfaction fit the claim.

His Worship said it was impossible to say from the evidence, which was in direct conflict, which side was telling the truth. He must look to the surrounding circumstances and other little matters in evidence. The profits for the three months during which the farm was conducted amounted to £8 9s Bd, or at the rate of £33 18s 8d for a year. The plaintiff's share for a year would be £lO 19s 4d. Other labour, such as salting skins, carting sheep, etc., would bring liim in about 5s a week, leaving him a total of 12s 6d a week with a free house. .Agaiast this had to be set off the boy's wages and keep. Therefore plaintiff would have £l7 a year, with nothing for the use of his horse and trap, but he would have the services of the boy for nothing. It seemed a ridiculous .thing to make such an arrangement. •But the defendants' position had also to In considered. On the arrangement that plaintiff claimed had been made they mould actually lose £7O 10s 8d a year. (Before they could receive any profit from the farm the latter would have tfo yield £175 a year, as Mr Mtzh.-r----iert proved with figures. If the farm {produced this, and plaintiff's story regarding the wage of 25s per week were correct, he would receive a clear profit of £.152 a year, with free house, and have the boy's services free. It seemed highly improbable that such an ar Tangement was made. The probabili tie/ appeared iu favour of defendants, His Worship also pointed out that plaintiff, although admittedly "bard Vip,- never miulc a claim for wages while lie was on the farm. Again., if (the plaintiff was to receive wages, why 'did he claim for timo spent Mn carting sheep? If he received wages his time would be his employers'. Plaintiff was therefore non-suited on his claim fo: a ops. He was, however, entitled to ■£2 18s for the harness, and to payment 'l»r work done outside of his duties on itbe poultry farm. His Worship assessed the tatal amount due to plaintiff at |.£h) Hd, and gave judgment toi thiin for tfcls amount, less the £3 paid jnto Court, witlj costs £1 8 s -