SHARE-MILKING DISPUTE.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 November 1921, Page 6

SHARE-MILKING DISPUTE.

HEARING AT “OPUNAKE COURT. The greater part of the sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Opunake orj Monday was occupied with the hearing of the share-milking dispute between Sam Brbich, of Oaonui, share-milker, and J. C. G’Rorke, of Opunake, farmer. Brbich claimed £9O for his share of bonus, and O’Rorke counter-claimed foi £2OO for wdrk not done by the sharemilker. The Magistrate (Mr. Mow-lem, S.M.) intimated that he thought the defendant should commence. Mr. O’Dea, in outlining the counter claim, said that the parties had worked for one year without a written agreement. The employer, not being satisfied with the work done on the farm, had insisted on a written agreement for the second year. Both partiejj repaired to the office of Mr. MeDavitt. solicitor, Opunake, and there an agreement was drawn up and signed by O’Rorke. Brbich declared himself satisfied with the agreement, but said hs would like lus wife to see it before ho signed. He kept putting off the signing until it was too late for his employer to get another share-milker, and then point blank refused to sign. Counsel, however, contended that it did not matter whether he signed or not; he was bound by the terms of the agreement which he had discussed in the lawyer’s office, with which, he had declared himself satisfied, and under which the employer had faithfully carried out the conditions on his part to be performed. The share milker had said that he had no agreement, and all he had done on the farm had been to milk the cows and take the milk to the factory. Counsel further submitted that, even assuming there was no written agreement, a share-milker must do the usual work that is done on a farm. Recent decisions of the highei’ Courts had laid it down that a share-milkex was a. servant; he must therefore carry out all reasonable directions of his employer. In April of this year, when Brbich was written to ’asking him to clean out the drains, he replied stating that his employer’s letter was an “offensive one,” and in effect stating that he would not do the work. He had cut no boxthorn, he had allowed the stock, including his own share of the weaners, and a neighbor s stock to run over and destroy the cron of turnips, and instead of removing the

stock, had merely written to the employer saying the stock were still on the turnips. Evidence along these lines and concerning other acts of default on the share-milker’s part was given in support of the counter-claim, and the hea" ing was adjourned until the next Court day.—Star.