SHAREMILKING DISPUTE

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20491, 6 May 1938, Page 2

SHAREMILKING DISPUTE

CLAIM FOR £67 PERCENTAGE OF BONUS | CAMBRIDGE MAGISTRATE’S COURT (Special to Timea) CAMBRIDGE. Thursday. ! A claim for £67 os 3d by w. B. James, 1 of Maungatautarl, aiiesred to be due from i M. H. and A. P. Crabty or Peria, balance on a share-mllklng contract, was heard by Mr S. L. Paterson. S.M.. at the Matamata Magistrate's Court. Mr D. J. Lundon < Cambridge) appeared for plalntltT, and Mr G. G. Bell (Matamata) for defendants. The claim centred around what ts termed the bonus. It was stated that the arrangements Tor the snaremilking were made in the first place by \V. M. Crabb, father of the defendants. PlalntltT alleged that a written memorandum was drawn up about a montn arter work was commenced. Plaintiff. William Barton James, now a sharemilker at Maungatautarl. stated that lie agreed with W. M. Crabb to milk on j shares for one third of the cream cheques up to. hut not over. Is per lb butterfat. 1 Witness was to employ five milkers, pay ! all power costs, maintain rubberware and | rences and £0 on. He objected to paying ror the pumping nf water, and Crabb said he would allow lor that. A Written Agreement This was a verbal agreement, but 1n August Crabb told him he intended to give his two sons a chance on the farm, and witness entered their employ. A written document wa? prepared and handed to witness by Harry Crabb. The cheques were received each month, but nothing out of the bonus. PlatntlfT stated that Archie Crabb was asked for this In proportion to is per lb. although butterrat realised over that figure. Crabb was under tne Impression that witness was paid in rull. The other brother was consulted and he was or the same opinion as hl-s brother. They could not agree with witness, so he left the Job. After hearing the derence, the magistrate said It appeared to him that the matter might be amicably settled. Plaintiff did not seem malicious In his evidence. He appeared to believe that he was entitled to a snare or the bonus to bring his payments up to one-third or 1«. Later In the day Mr Paterson gave his decision. He said the terms or payments were from monthly cheques. That was dear. it was generally understood that “monthly cheques” meant the monthly advance payments. in terms or the agreement plaintiff wag not entitled to , any more than a third of the monthly cheques. Judgment was therefore given ; In favour or defendant,