PLOUGHING CONTRACT.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17972, 18 March 1930, Page 8

PLOUGHING CONTRACT.

FATIGUED HORSES BEATEN CONTRACTOR REFUSES TO GO ON. CLAIM FOIL WORK DONE. SETTLE MEN T ARRAN G ED. Allegations that he followed the horses engaged in an almost impossible task, ploughing through a heavy, partly stumped bog, on a hack, and wielded a stock whip on them lor a couple of days, until the animals staggered with exhaustion, were made by a farmer and contractor of Hamilton, named Samuel Dixon, against the elderly owner of the property, Donald McDonald, of Remuera, Auckland, during the hearing of a claim brought by Dixon at Hamilton to-day, for £l2l 16s Bd, for work done- Dixon said that when he protested, McDonald replied that lie was boss. When finally he refused to work the horses further McDonald told him to get to hell off the place. Finally, when he (Dixon) refused to leave the property without being permitted to finish his contract or being paid for it, McDonald got a policeman to put him off, and told him he had his remedy through the civil court. When the claim came before Mr .1. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., to-day Mr L. Tompkins represented plaintiff and Mr M. 11. Hampson defendant. Stumping Not Finished.

Mr Tompkins explained that the claim arose out of a claim for discing and ploughing undertaken on March 26 between McDonald, a retired farmer, of Remuera, and Dixon, a ploughing conlractor, who had done work for .McDonald before this contract. An agreement had been entered into by which the employer would cleai 1 the area of slumps and till in holes before the ploughing was commenced, it was stipulated that the ploughing would lie commenced before the end of May. Dixon went, out to do the work in the middle of April, hut found that the stumping had not been finished. McDonald’s manager agreed that it would not be advisable to go on with the work at the time. Dixon was then given some top-dressing work to do. Shortly afterwards, despite the fact that the slumping was not finished, he commenced ploughing, on the request of .McDonald. The presence of the stumps made the ploughing work very difficult, and as a result there had been considerable time lost. After he had commenced ploughing McDonald employed a Dalmatian to follow the plough and help Dixon to remove the slumps. Dixon was continually on the job, except for several small delays through wet weather. During the course of the ploughing one of Dixon's horses had fallen into a large hole, and had to be destroyed. This loss, plaintiff contended, was due to defendant's failure to properly prepare the paddock. If had taken 52 days to do the ploughing work. In a conversation with McDonald plaintiff was promised two tons of chaff to compensate him for the extra heavy nature of the work. He was given the chaff shortly after. The plough had been considerably knocked about by the stumps. Near the finish of the contract McDonald had come into the paddock and , interfered with the horses, whipping them up and crashing the plough into stumps. At the end of three days the horses were exhausted. McDonald then told Dixon to go on with the discing. Dixon replied that such was impossibel, as his horses were played out. Dixon was then ordered off the place, and when some four clays later he returned to complete his contract, McDonald called the police to put him off the property. Dissatisfied With Contract. Plaintiff said he entered into a contract to do certain ploughing for McDonald. One of the paddocks, however, was not in a fit state for ploughing on account of the heavy logs and slumps it contained. McDonald had agreed to have this paddock stumped. Only about half the stumps were taken out, however. Witness was ploughing for about 53 days. Witness said he was dissatisfied with the contract, and told McDonald that he must get the place properly stumped before the ploughing could be proceeded with. Witness told him he was not making horse feed out of the contract. On McDonald promising to buy two tons of chaff and to complete the stumping, witness agreed to complete the contract. McDonald later repudiated tiie account for the chaff. The stumping was not completed, whereupon witness said that if he had to go on with the work, it was only right that McDonald should pay for any repairs to the plough. McDonald told him to gel on with the job, promising to see everything put right at the end of the job, adding, “I am not a mean man.” Three days before witness finished the ploughing McDonald followed the plough horses round on a hack. He carried a stock-whip with which he belaboured the horses which were exhausted through ploughing through bogs and doing impossible work. He whipped the horses as many as three times when they had stopped on account of bogs. Witness protested repeatedly against McDonald thrashing the horses, but to these protests McDonald replied that In; was boss. Defendant continued this process from dinner-time on Wednesday until Hie job was finished at midday Friday. On the Thursday, before finishing, McDonald asked him to do another round. Witness replied that lie (McDonald) was blind if he could not see the horses were done. One of them was staggering, and witness positively refused lo drive the animals any further. The following day he refused to proceed with any more work until the horse had had three days’ spell. McDonald on the Friday said, “Now, you are going discing,” ‘ Witness replied firmly that he was not. McDonald, in a loud domineering voice then said, “You are going disoing this afternoon.” To this witness replied, I'll see you in hell before I work these horses again without a rest.” ’.McDonald then told him to “get to hell off the place.” “Making Splendid Job of It.” Witness said he spelled all his heavy horses and did some work with his ji'rrht horses for one Bryant. This annoyed .McDonald -ver\ much. Witness had previously postponed Bryant's work lo do McDonald's ploughing witness started harrowing and discing nine days after he finished the ploughing. As n result of the heavy work and floundering into one of the big stump holes in the bog. one of the horses, valued at £2O had to he destroyed.’ The arrangements regarding the discing and harrowing were that Continued in next culumn.f

tbev should he two cuts and one harrowing for £1 an acre. Any further work was to be paid for at the price stated in the contract. McDonald, left it -with witness to do an extra harrowing at 2s 6d per acre if necessary, McDonald later, through his manager, ordered witness off the place, and when lie refused to go without payment, McDonald sent for a policeman to put him off, telling witness he had has remedy through the civil court. When the ploughing was in progress McDonald had repeatedly commented that witness was making a splendid job of it, and that lie did not think it possible- to have done it. in cross-examination, plaintiff said he had done a previous job for McDonald, but had only been paid for 15 acres, whereas when measured up the area was 17 acres. He had regarded McDonald as a reasonable man when lie entered into the contracts with him. When the Court resumed this afternoon, Air A. L. Tompkins (plaintiff) informed His Worship that a satisfactory settlement had been arnanami.