The S.M. in giving judgment said ; this is a somewhat complicated mat ter, the situation is complex and intricate and a most curious one ; one party to the agreement is spoken of as overseer the other as owner ; the overseer appears to me to be a partner in the stock and chattels on the land for the period mentioned in the agree ment, and also manager for that period. Agreements of this kind are very difficult to draw, even amongst members of the legal profession ; the agreement before the Court appears to be well drawn and I may say ex ceptionally so. The defendant has not quite appreciated his position under agreement. Thrush’s conten tion as to his position appears to be the'right one, he, as manager, had a right to carry on the business to such a point as almost to be able to resent O’Rorke’s interfence and prevent him entering upon the land. I am of opinion that plaintiff is entitled to the value of calves claimed, £l3 10s, the share of drenches, £1 11s 5d ; cost of windlass and barrell, 14s; also the

damage for trespass', 10s ; and I think defendant should take all his cattle, save those mentioned in the agree ment off the land. I may say that in actions of this kind the plaintiff’s demands are often pushed too far. Judgment will be for plaintiff for £l6 6s 5d and costs £2 10s. , c G. Mitchell (McDavitt) v. G. A. Vile (Wilson) claim for £l4 19s, bal ance due for wages. Plaintiff gave evidence to theeffect that he was engaged by defendant as driver at_ 7s per day, he worked 87 days, which amounted to £BO 9s. Defendant had paid him on account £l6 10s, leaving the balance £l4 19a. On cross-ex amination plaintiff admitted that he had on occasions worked for Mr Chambers at the defendant’s direction, and for which Chambers had paid him and he had not given defendant credit for amounts received, but was willing to do so, he did not remember the amount.
