DISTRICT mUX2> HAMILk iCV Mt^Mh ill 1H1 ' k 9

Waikato Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1722, 19 July 1883, Page 2

DISTRICT mUX2> HAMILk iCY Mt^Mh ill IHI ' k 9

the plaintiff, nnd Mr Theo. Cooper for defendants. The hearing of the case had been adjourned from, thc v previpus even-, ing, after taking, the evidence off the plaintiff, nnd was now j The first witness called was William Sloane, chemist and druggist nnd storekeeper, Te Awamutu, who deposed that he yiiited the factory often. The , utensils( wp?e always f clean, : The, con; demfred' cheese rwas" deplored bylth'ose who purchased it to be as good as any MUM&«-?& 91 r& B s ?' fitness milk from the factory on two occasions, one time it was tainted and the other time it was tour. A; man could not be expected to make good cheese out of tairited'milk. 'He had sold a good deal of cheese. No cheesetnaker can rely upon making a uniform quality of cheese. A good deal depends upon the temperature. He had heard complaints about the plaintiff ; always found ' the plaintiff at the factory'when he went there, and always busy. Mr Waipole's cheese compared favourably with that of others, it excels Canterbury cheese. Mr- Walpole was iti his opinion a competent man. For some time he had his brother and another man. Up to the beginning of „ the year he had infficient help; He Tiad been at the factory sinee 1 the new ■ manager took it over. There were four men employed., ■; Cross-examined by Mr Cooper : I have ■old eight cheeses out.of this factory ; I have' tasted several others in Mr Bridgman'ty > The floor of the curing-room was clean. I was in the factory about six times before Mr I Wai pole's brother' left. I was not in the factory more than twice between January and March. Some time after Mr Walpole left I made a statement that I could not have believed things were in the state they were. It did not refer to the condition of the place when Mr Walpole was there. Mr Walpole had then left the factory. I know Messrs Jones and Churches. I told them that if Mr Walpole spoiled the cheeses they should have discharged him sooner. I might have told Mr Walton last night that Walpole commenced to neglect the business when his brother left the factory. The place was still kept clean. On some of the cheeses there was mould. I aaw jumpers only on one. cheese. Alfred Collins deposed that he was employed at the factory from the start up to a week after plaintiff left. The factory M'fts always in a cleanly condition, especially the curing- room and the utensils. There were three hauds employed at the start, and as the cheese accumulated further, assistance was re* quired. Heard the plaintiff ask for further assistance which was promised by the chairman of directors, but never given. Plaintiff was forced to engage a youth at his own cost. The cheeses were regularly turned, and rubbed every day. Cheeses would stick to the shelves in 24 hours. The plaintiff was most attentive to his duties, and they were often at work in the factory from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m., and very frequently up to 8.30 p.m. Was sometimes compelled to take inferior milk. Floyd nnd Mandeno brouglit inferior milk, and plaintiff had orders to take it. Some of the directors visited the factory, at unseasonable times, and brought visitors with them. Witness never heard the directois complain that plaintiff kept the premises in a dirty condition, or that he was incompetent. Had offered 4d a lb. for the condemned cheeses. Had taken milk to be analysed by Mr Sloane. Cross-examined by Mr Cooper : There were no cheeses stuck to the shelves the day Capt. Runoiman was there. There were no cheeses in a state of decomposi-" tion. Every week the floor was washed out. George Edgecumbe deposed : I am Manager of The Waikato Times, I was in business for some years. lam a shareholder in the Te Awamutu factory. I hive visited the factory. I ordered a case of good cheese, and a case of condemned cheese. I tasted the cheeses. None of the cheeses were bad. They were all marketable at a price. Unless a man understood his business he could not have made those cheeses. I consider the cheese as good as other local cheese. Some ot those who had the cheese came back for a further supply. Cross-examined by Mr Cooper. — I have been associated with Mr Walpole in publishing a book. I had three cheeses afterwards sent to me. I stated that one of them was a bag of whey. Re-Examined. — The fact of my being associated with Mr Walpole in publishing a book would not affect the truthfulness of my testimony. John S. Edgecumbe, commission agent, Hamilton, gave similar testimony. J. T. Home, storekeeper, Hnmiltoiyleposed: I have bought ana sold the cheeses. They sold freely. The cheese was good ordinary cheese. An incompetent person could not make cheeses of that description. - t Cross-examined.-—T he cheeses produced look bad outside, but they are sound, and may be very good inside. Frederic Gaudin, hotel-keeper, Hamilton, deposed : I have been to the cheese factory. I found the cheese quite equal to anything I have seen in Waikato. I tasted a cheese here and there. The maker of the cheese I tasted could not be an incompetent man. Cheesemakers cannot turn out a uniform article. If a man is compelled to use inferior milk he must be expected to produce an inferior article. I have had great experience in regard to cheese in several parts of the world. Walter Evinsen, storeman in the employment of J. W. Bridgman, Te Awamutu, deposed that he inspected the factory with Mr Teasdale, and found everything clean and in good order. The cheese was a good marketable article, and sold well. Had had experience as a taster of cheese and butter. J^ B. Teasdale deposed :— I am a storekeeper residing at Te - Awamutu. I was asked to go to see the' factory after the cheese was condemned. I found the factory in very fair order. Some of,' the cheese I saw iii' the factory looked well; some of it did not look so well. When the outer, covering was taken off the cheese tfeemed all right. The cheese sold well. It was as marketable as other local cheese. j) " ' > Cross-examined by Mr Cooper : When I inspected the factory' there were about 500 cheeses in it. ,1 .examined, the two lower shelves. I tasted five, and felt most, of. those on,, the lower shelves. I was half an, hour ,or three-quarters of an hour in the factory. ' I was brought up on a,farm; in Cheshire, and; assisted my uncle in making cheese. \ This closed thu'oase for the plaintiff; Mi"/ 1 Cooper /opened 'his 1 case at some length. He said it had been agreed that' i the, only points to bet left for his Honour's decision were the questions ofincomperf^y^t'wiWew'calM.'wa^;-; ■;»» J. W. Bridgman, who deposed 'that jhe, ? was' chairman of the; director"* t,o'f> the jTe Awftmutu Ch'e(M^iand«fßacon,nGb'rr.pany^ The , buildingiH^as4erecte(l'!i,under Mr "paid. »^fH»^ %*wbilß^tfe^buildingB, were bemg'4r^otea£##^^

was We first time that tenHfic6dJsp,T any, of the cheeses were in a I Bj con ? f&o\, ~A nutnbor of the c!mm?s6b iMi the \ rop Shplf fookßg Wetnfid sticky. Wherep|ere,|b'e jthoufflt, semrafttlpzfln ij|||hat|jonditgpH.j cheeses were full of whey, and outside they were all were all wet. The lower cheeses wore older cheeses. The cheeses "wjfte in a. better f conflitipn jvhenjhe went over the factory jyewously. Capt. Runciman condemned 'some of the cheeses. The company had lost at least £300. In consequence of Capt. Runcimnn's report the directors dismissed Mr He saw some cheeses thrown a>vay tt i the pigs. , He asked Mr Collins about -this. 'HV said it was some made 1 from sour milk. In cross-examination, witness said he had sold some of the condemned cheese in his shop, i > • • ' :^ - > George' Churches 'deposed tibafc he was a director, of the.Te Awamutu Cheese and Bacon Company. His father was a manufacturer of cheese, and his mother assisted. Was at the factory every day. It was not kept as clean as he would like to see it. Thought there was a change for the worse in the latter portion of the time. In February and March the factory appeared to be in a filthy state. Complained about the factory on one occasion. Examined the place in March. It was the Tuesday before Capt. Runciman came. Saw a great number of the cheeses in a filthy state. Some of the cheeses' appeared .. to be covered with slime. He examined the shelves. Some on the upper shelves were in a very bad 'state. ' ' Some with the fly, some with mites. , He counted the cheeses that were io a bad state ; there were close on 200. There were some cheesss stuck to the shelves. There may have been 50 stuck to the shelves. Nearly all the new cheeses had the whey exuding. The curds seemed quite loose. The cheeses ought to be wiped and turned every day until they are dry. In his opinion Mr Walpole did not keep the premises in proper condition. The witness was cross-examined at some length, but nothing of interest was elicited. Wm. Taylor, a director of the company, visited the factory in March, a few days before Capt. Runciman's visit. Looked over the" curing room, and saw over 100 inferior, and nearly 200 not up to the mark. Tho inferior is ones were rough and ugly on the outside, like those produced, or wet and slimy. About 40 were as bad as those produced. The second 100 were only less bad in degree. In one cheese he could hear the flies buzzing inside. Some of them smelt as if decomposed. The floor was damp, but not so wet as when Capt. Runciman was there. Remembered being there with the new cheesemaker while plaintiff was there. Whey was dropping from cheeses on the top shelf on to the dry cheeses underneath. Did not think this improved the cheese. Remembered Capt. Runciman making an examination of the cheese. The floor was very wet on that day. Remembered Sloane saying to him that he would not have believed the cheese could be so bad if he had not seen them. Did not profess to be a cheesemaker. Cros^-examined : I believed that Mr Sloane'a remark was made on the morning after the new maker took possession. Was.not on unfriendly terms with Mr Walpole. Was chairman at the first, but did not resign because the site was not chosen on his land. Do not remember saying that on that account he would throw it up. Did not know that Capt. Runciman was inimical to the plaintiff. Heard that he was afterwards. Will swear there were between 30 and 40 bad cheeses, as bad as those produced. Plaintiff was ordered to accept inferior milk for a few days. This was Floyd's. Heard that Mandeno's and Bell's milk was tainted. James Walton, secretary to the company since January last, deposed that he ,113 d frequently visited the factory. .Often noticed that the 'floor was wet and dirty. Had seen the cheese turned, but never rubbed. Most of the new cheese was wet and slimy. Spoke to Walpole, who told him that he was trying to find out the cause of it. Had often seen little pools of whey lying about, and bad seen them wiping it up. The total amount of milk received during Walpole's time was between 37,000 and 38,000 gallons, and, the amount of cheese made between 29,000 and 30,0001b5. The new manager had made o\ er a pound of cheese to the gallon. The cheese produced was made by plaintiff, and was a fair sample of the damaged article. Cross-examined : I could not swear that the bad cheeses were made by . Wnlpole. I have heard and believe that .the milk is richer in the autumn, so that Mr Baunatync ought to make a slight pronortiou more than Mr Walpole. The former commenced at the end of March. Plaintiff applied for assistance, and stated that unless this was granted the cheese would suffer. During the first week Bannatyne had several men to help him. I know that Walpole hired ft boy to assist him.. Re-examined : The extra men granted Mr Bannatyne were to clean the place Up. This help was not paid for by the compauy. At other times there were only the same number of hands as Mr Walpole had. John Scott, farmer, Paterangi, deposed that he had visited the factory. There were signs of mould and damp on the cheese. It was quite, apparent. He told Mr Walpole that the room was too damp. Plaintiff said the room was not damp enough, and that he liked to see the mould ou the cheese. He said a 701b cheese would lose 41b in weight in a, dry curing-room, whereas, in a (lamp room it would lose nothing. Witness said if he could cure them in that way it would be an advantage. He should say the dampness would rot the cheese. The cheeses produced had not been properly pressed. Much of their appearance was caused by tho damp. In the factory witness was in in Canada they tried to keep the cur-ing-room dry. He could not say that the factory was in a clean state in Mr Walpole's time. Dampness, he thought, would rotthe cheese and .induce mites. A newly made cheese ought not to have mites. The third cheese produced (Bannatyne's) was better,' but he would like to see them even better than that. 'Since Mr Walpole's time the factory was kept much better and cleaner. Cross-exaniined : I did not go to the factory by invitation. I know whether a cheese is properly made or not., I decline to say whether I am an expert. I had two months experience in making cheese in a Canadian factory when I was 1 5 years old. Have not seen a cheese made since, but visited other factories at the same time. The system was explained to me. I have had no practical -■ experience since then ; that is for 15 years. I should say that mould on cheese would not do, it any good. There is i difference in mould. This mould was caused by dampness. I consider the' cheeses were' not' properly pressed or properly made. _The T factory was dirty. There should not be water enough thrown on the floor to make the place sloppy. ~ <[><•'. f I >'i'l > j Jas. Bannatyne, manager of the Te Awamutu factory, deposed that he took 'dh'arge on the 24th' March, t THe' premises were in a very- -filthy ,, condition. „ The" "curingtroom ! was'inua^badß'^tate.i' v There were over k hundred itf a very bad ,sl»t»^o*ft'and:iJirmy,Tan€l dropping •6S^Mi}ielpUrlh^hojfiiof'l the" cheeses" Saraa^re'fltuckr^o th^ahelves, arid ( had/

ftflSWiheAfactory properly. When he tjJok^charge there were 700 or 800 cheeses |Btore;skTwo men and a boy were BuftW went ttplook after these. * VKitifgss ham mlde about 600 cheeses sirfeje bTe to<j|| dntro;e^pThe two cheeses produced wej|§ nw[ j||ifketable. Did not belieye tn<| curiogpbom should be dnmpff ■ Him' Sways kept the room as dry as'fibssibTe. No water should be used to clean out the room. If once got clean, sweeping was sufficient. * Cross-examined!: A new cheese should notfsweat after it| goe/ into* the curingroofn. If wney*> drops' onHhe floor it should be removed with a dry cloth. I have had one year and ten .months' experience. lam forty years old. I would set myself against a man of twelve years' experience. 1 1 was 'first at ttfe Warnanib6ol Factory, ' Victoria; ! as assistant.' Four men were employed there. Got 25s per weekmndvMiounds'i ' I*, was at that factory during the year and ten months. I think I am capable of taking charge of a factory. The filth was in the curingroom,-. The.floor. wascovered with slime. For a^l I know to the contrary, the directors may have had a game of hare-and-hounds with the manager and knocked the cheeses over and made slime of them. Since I took possession of the factory I have taken as much care of Walpole's cheeses as my own. A new cheese might stick to the shelf in 24 hours. ; Re-examined : I learned how to make a cheese in Victoria. The cheese produced is a fair specimen of those made by me. ' •- £ '* t , James Runciman, farmer, residing at Kirikiriroa, deposed that he had had a life's experience in making cheese. Had made cheese every season since 1845. Some time ago he-iWas npppinsed by the Waikato settlers to vjisit " America for the purpose of' reporting on lihe cheese industry in general. Was in America three months, visited 34 factories, and inspected them fully. The curing-room should be kept perfectly dry. It should not be washed, but Bwept. It should be dry with a temperature of about 65deg., more or less. The curing-rooms in America are never washed out. The room should be well ventilated. At the request of the directors he visited the Te Awamutu factory in March last. Mr Walpole was manager. The factory was nowhere clean, but the curing-room was in a filthy condition. The floor was slimy and wet, and the shelves were dirty and covered with mites. This was not a proper condition. Examined the cheeses minutely. From 20 to 30 were quite unfit for human food, and about 100 fast approaching the same condition. Some of them were perfectly rotten and stunk. Had written a report to the directers. The two cheeses produced were not properly made. They were neglected in the making. They were granulated, and had not been sufficiently pressed. [Witness here read his report to the directors, in which the general facts deposed to were dealt with more in detail.] The state of the curing-room displayed great negligence on the part of the manager— he would not say incompetency. The other cheese (Bannatyne's) was a good marketable article. Cross-examined : I was not paid for making the inspection. I visited the factory at the invitation of th« directors. I have no animus against the late manager. I bought a plant for the Te Awamutu factory in America, but the company did not use it. The Te Awamutu plant was made in Auckland. I had no " down " on the manager on this account, but made a fair, impartial report. I did not go up predisposed to make an unfavourable report. The manager was not with me when I went through the factory. I never set my foot in such «i filthy factory. The directors had told me that things were in an unsatisfactory state. I believe the directors wanted to get rid of their manager, because he was ruining their property. I did not know how bad the management was until I went to the factory. I tested seven or eight, perhaps ten, cheeses. There were some fair cheeses' there, but none in a good marketable condition. The cheese was as good as some of mine internally, but not externally. I have made cheeses on the Cheddar system, and on the Dunlop plan. I gained a thorough knowledge of the methods followed in the Ameiican factories. Over half the Te Awamutu cheese was unmarketable. I condemned about 300. A factory generally makes a uniform article, and a cheese-maker can reckon upon thi3. I have seen thousands of cheese, and can tell whether a cheese is good without testing it. Cheese can be made of uniform quality. The temperature has something to do with it. A small proportion of tainted milk in a large proportion of good milk will not affect it. Do not know whether Mr Walpole was obliged to take inferior milk. Know what floating curds are. They may happen once or twice in a season. I have only seen them once or twice. They so seldom occur that they are not worth noticing. I know nothing about the manner of treating them. I consider myself a practical expert. The temperature in the curing-room ought to be between 56 deg. and 75 dcg. Artificial rennet is not of uniform strength. Could not say from memory how much should be put to the 100 gallons of milk. The witness was further cross-examined with a view of testing his qualifications as an expert, but he said he did not pretend to be a theoretical cheese-maker. He understood the practical part of the business. This was all the evidence for the defence. The Plaintiff, recalled, sworn, deposed that he had never said he could work a factory of 1000 gallons with a man and a boy. Mr Cooper then addressed the court, recapitulating at considerable length the -chief points in the evidence,- contending that the agreement between the parties had been abrogated by the plaintiffs resignation, and the acceptance thereof by the directors'in December. He also dwelt on the weight of the testimony to tlje plaintiffs incompetency and neglect, and quoted from " Smith's Master and Servant," to prove that where a servant injured his master's business he was liable to instant dismissal. Mr O'Neill, in reply, contended that the rescission of the agreement was nullified by the subsequent action of the "defendants, in accepting; the, second/resignation in terms of clause 3 of the agreement. He submitted that much of the expert testimony produced was .utterly worthless', and drew attention to'the evident animosity entertained towards the plSintiff by the directors. His Honour said he was quite satisfied that the rescission of the agreement had I been nullified. The^only' point' remaining, therefore, was that touching the competency of plaintiff. , I He would take time to read over the evidence, again, and T give judgment oh ' Monday at Auckla'rid. ' Gkaeme v. Sandes.— Claim'^6o 6s 6d,balance of salary as a surveyor, 51 days st £1 11s: 6d per ,day, after deducting £20 paid. ' 'Mr 1 O'Neill for plaintiff, Mr Hay for.defendanti . , ; , <ji• ' I j ! Plaintiff deposed that he was a competent surveyor, and that he had been engaged by defendant, no salary having been.paid. He ( thought £1 Us, 6d^pW diywas a 4 reasonable >demaud.u Defenaant J had oM-ed^im lOß'&^e* Bay, which he refused. He.claimed £60 6s 6d. — In cross-examination he stated that! if; h'e|commencefla»sWv'e.y at appoint in j a boundary-line, wprke^round to the com-mencing-poihe/ andMound : his work close properly, it must^e" correct. His fieldbßbl fwas^rop/erly liffyWiWyrstf&oblthe , duty,of a v c6njpe|ent;'Surv"eyor to:che|k ,his f jworj^es^ check, hw/chamman's rwo'rfc.', nor io >see. thatpegs^were v ,putanjrt'all intersecttjohs c

wling. plaintiff a competent man. ,B£ md not obey in| Btttuctions to^fleck ins work, and did not 'slip to uMerstanfi what checking n||lnti. QffoTjll himjlps 6d per day to gilfrid. of hi>|^ Hos|kl not then know oflhe ekter.t*oi InMcJrrors. The defenr dip, M^graJpglo^Vnbe, Stubbing, and Porchas, Imcno'rised surveyors, stated that no work would be received in the .Survey OSice unless chucked every two or three miles according to regulation. It -was the duty of a competent surveyor to check his work and connect with hxed points. A surveyor should check the work of his chainman, and was responsible for his errors. It was absolutely necessary to put in pegs at all intersections of boundaries with .roads, and ways. Plaintiffs field book' was not properly kept, and not quite intelligible! The other field book produced (Mr F. Edgeeumbe's) was"- properly kept. Any competent draughtsman could plot from 1 Messrs Hossack, Miles, Mclntyre, and Runciman were .examined, and gave skilled evidence, and also evidence as to facts. Mr Hay contended that it was a well known principle of law that when a person engaged his services as a .skilled workman he , warranted himself competent to do the work he undertook. Plaintiff was not entitled to- remuneration unless he was competent. It was abundantly proved .that his work was not done in a competent manner, Mr O'Neill replied, contending that incompetency had not been proved, but even if it had, the,defeudant offered plaintiff 10s 6d per day, and he was at least entitled to that sum. The, Court considered that " plaintiffs work had not'been performed in a competent manner, but as some work had been done and defendant offered 10s 6d per day, judgment would be ; given oil that basis for £6 los 6d, and costs ou Resident Magistrate's Court scale. Sandes v. Graeme. — This was an action for £58 ss, damages by reason of the defendant's incompetency as a surveyor. Mr Hay for plaintiff, Mr O'Neill for defendant. Owing to no date having been inserted in the summons, the court had no jurisdiction. On the application of Mr Hay, execution in the former case was stayed until next court day to enable plaintiff to proceed de novo.