3rd December 1926 - Meeting of Farmers at Buntingford

Original image on Facebook

Meeting of Farmers at Buntingford

The Cost of Farm Cultivation

A meeting of local farmers was held at the Poor Law Institution on Wednesday in last week, when the question of the cost of farm cultivation was discussed.

The chair was taken by Captain E.T. Morris J.P., and between 40 and 50 farmers were present.

The chairman gave a very interesting address on the cost of cultivations, his figures being based on the records taken at the Herts Agricultural Institution at "Oakland." A discussion followed when several questions were asked and answered.

The meeting was a very successful one, and resulted in the formation of a Buntingford and District Agricultural Debating Society. Capt. E.T. Morris was elected President, with Mr G. Scarborough-Taylor as Hon. Sec., and Mr A. Macarthur as Hon. Treas. 

The committee of ten elected were all local farmers. The subscription to the society was fixed at 2/6 per year, and meetings for discussion on important farming questions will be held from time to time.

A hearty vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the business of the meeting.

25th March 1927 - Buntingford & District Agricultural Debating and Discussion Society

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford & District Agricultural Debating and Discussion Society

The last meeting of the 1926-27 season of the above Society took place at the Assembly Room, the George Hotel, on Tuesday evening.

The chair was taken by Mr A. Macarthur, who introduced the principal speaker (Mr J.W. Reid, of Oaklands).

The subject down for discussion was "The business side of Farming," and, as the speaker said, it was one for wide consideration.

In farming it was often necessary to lose on one branch in order to gain on another. Sheep farming, he said, often failed as a business proposition, but its value in manuring the land could not be reckoned in £ s d.

In many cases economies could be effected in labour, it had been proved that the average proportion of labour to the expenditure of a farm was 28 per cent, and while to try and effect economy in labour would mean disaster in many cases, it had been found that quite a number of farms were under-staffed.

Economy in horse labour could often be effected. There was also the question of economy in manures by purchasing the right kind. It had been found that 12,000 acres in Hertfordshire were deficient in lime. Economy in feeding stuffs should also be practised.

The speaker then dealt with the question of increased receipts, and dealt with such matters as dairy farming, poultry and store cattle.

Mr Macarthur, Mr Scarborough Taylor and Mr S. Pigg took part in the discussion which followed, and at the close Mr Macarthur, in moving a vote of thanks to Mr Reid, said he wished, on behalf of the Society, to thanks Mr Hunter-Smith for the help he had given them. He regretted that some of the meetings had been poorly attended, and he hoped that if the Society carried on next year they would have an increased membership.

Mr S. Pigg seconded the vote of thanks, and Mr J. Laird, in supporting the vote, said he thought there were many who did not realise what Oaklands was doing for them.

The vote was carried with acclamation.

Mr J.W. Reid and Mr J. Hunter-Smith replied, and said that if it was decided to carry on next year they would be pleased to help.

16th July 1926 - Buntingford Farmers' Dispute

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford Farmers' Dispute

Action at Hertford Assizes

Farmer Swoons in the Witness Box

An action was brought before the Lord Chief Justice of England, Baron Hewart, at the Herts. Assizes, at the Shire Hall, Hertford, on Tuesday, June 22nd, by Mr George Borlase, of Cumberlow Green Farm, Rushden, near Buntingford, to recover damages against Mr William J. Williams, of Ashdown Farm, Hare Street, Buntingford, for wrongfully detaining a thrashing machine lent to him in May, 1924, and not returned until July, 1925. Mr Lilley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Grafton Prior for the defendant.

Counsel for the plaintiff stated in opening the case that the parties were farmers and friends, and in May 1924, the defendant asked paintiff to lend him his thrashing machine to do a few days' thrashing. It was lent with the intimation that the plaintiff, who had then finished thrashing, would required to have it back again by the following harvest.

That thrashing machine was not returned until July 1925, three or four months after the issue of the wrist in these proceedings. Meanwhile the defendant had made use of the thrashing machine himself and had also hired it out to neighbouring farmers.

Those the defendant's books which the plaintiff had been able to inspect - not all of them - clearly disclused the fact that the defendant had let the machine out on hire to no less than 31 farms. Part of the damages would there be to take account of the profit which the defendant made by the use of the plaintiff's machine.

The damages were placed under the following four heads:

(1) The cost of hiring a thrashing machine to thrash his own corn after the harvest of 1924, £60;

(2) depreciation of the value of the machine and cost of alterations and repairs, £60;

(3) loss by damage to corn which sprouted owing to the fact that the plaintiff was unable to get another machine, £82;

(4) profits obtained by the defendant from letting the machine out on hire to other farmers, £100.

The Judge: What does a new machine of this kind cost?

Counsel: About £300.

Your are not asking for a new machine? - No.

Continuing, counsel said that before the plaintiff and the defendant came to Hertfordshire they were neighbours in Cornwall, and were very friendly. They used to buy stock from one another, and there was an account between them. At the time this machine was borrowed the plaintiff owed the defendant £100, and that was to be set off against his claim.

When the plaintiff in August, 1924, asked for the return of the machine the defendant promised to do so, but failed to keep his promise. He afterwards applied several times, but the machine was not returned. In March, 1925, litigation was commenced, and in July, 1925, the machine was returned.

The plaintiff gave evidence in support of counsel's statement. In cross-examination he denited that the defendant ever pressed him for a settlement of their accounts. In consequence of not getting back his machine he had to hire another one from a Mr Stick. Asked if the defendant had ever pressed him to pay his account, plaintiff replied: "Oh, no never. He simply said, 'Oh, go on boy; that's all right'."

Didn't you really let him have the machine because you owed him this money? - No, but when my men took the machine to him he said to them "It shall never go back any more."

The Judge: Don't you think that showed that you let him have the machine because you owed him £100? - No.

Counsel for defendant: Do you know your own machine? - What do you take me for? What a silly question to ask. (Laughter).

Mr Harry Goode, agricultural engineer, of Royston, was called to state that his charge for repairing the machine after it was returned was £55. In cross-examination the Judge elicited the fact that this witness sold the machine to the plaintiff in September, 1923, for £120, and it was then 22 years old.

Mr Thomas John Stick, farmer, and agricultural machinist, Mr John Henley, foreman to the plaintiff, and Mr William Aldridge, formerly in the defendant's employ, also gave evidence.

Mr Prior for the defence, said that he admitted having the thrashing machine and using it, but that he was always prepared to pay for it if the plaintiff would only come to an arrangement to settle the outstanding account.

The defendant (Mr Williams) stated that at the time he borrowed the machine the plaintiff (Mr Borlase) owed him £183 for cows, bulls, and other stock, and he still owed it to him. He had never paid a penny on account. Nothing whatever was said as to terms when he borrowed the thrashing machine, neither as to paying for it or as to how long he was to keep it.

Were you to pay him anything for the use of the machine? - No mention was made about paying anything.

It was pointed out to him that in the correspondence at first they were very friendly and addressed each other as "Dear George" and "Dear Will," but afterwards Mr Williams altered his attitude - Yes, replied defendant, when Mr Borlase sent me several nasty letters I said I would not have anything more to do with him, and asked him to pay me what he owed me.

What damage has Mr Borlase suffered by your retaining his machine? - None. I have had damage through not being paid for my bulls and cows that he has had since 1923.

Mr Williams was then cross-examined as to the documents he had been asked to produce, and why he had suppressed some that were material to the case, and he replied that he did not think they were material.

The Lord Chief Justice then sternly remarked: Do you know that nothing is so prejudicial to your case in these courts as the suppression of documents?

Mr Williams faltered, and fell head-long out of the witness-box on the floorof the court with a heavy thud. His wife, who was in the gallery, and the police ran to his assistance, whilst the hall-keeper hurriedly fetched a glass of water. The defendant soon recovered, and was able to say "I felt giddy," but he looked very much shaken, and no further questions were asked of him by the plaintiff's counsel.

Evidence was given by Mr Grigg, of Cockhampstead Farm, Braughing, Mr Fred Dowton, of Cottered, and others for the defence.

His Lordship said that in his opinion the plaintiff was clearly entitled to succeed, and he awarded him £81 14s. 9d. after deducting the £100 owing to the defendant, the defendant to pay costs.

(From the Herts. Mercury).

2nd April 1926 - The Government and Agriculture

Original image on Facebook

The Government and Agriculture

Major Kindersley replies to Local Farmers

On Friday last, Major Guy M. Kindersley replied to the questions submitted at a meeting of local farmers, held on March 11th, a report of which appeared in these columns.

The meeting on Friday was held at the Benson Hall and the Chairman (Mr Claud Fraser) said they were pleased Major Kindersley was able to come and speak to them on the important questions raised.

Major Kindersley, who was warmly received, said:

[Transcriber note - There is a very extensive write up of the Major's speech, which is so long the font size had to be reduced by the paper printer. It doesn't name anyone, so I have decided to not transcribe it. You can read the entire thing in the original image.]

Major Kindersley also referred to his own position in regard to the Government Electricity Bill, to which he, together with other members, had submitted a reasoned amendment. He declared as "monstrous" the insinuation in a newspaper that he had done so because he was interested in electricity concerns. He did not possess a single share, and his motives were always in the public interest.

Mr H. May moved a vote of thanks to Major Kindersley for his address. He (Mr May) was one of those who formulated one of the question, and he thought Major Kindersley had answered it well. 

He hoped, however, that something would be done to bring Agriculture on the footing it should be. (Applause).

Mr Macarthur in seconding, said he also was one who raised one or more of the questions put to Major Kindersley. He did not agree entirely with all Major Kindersley had said. With reference to the Widows and Orphans Pensions scheme. What he (Mr Macarthur) objected to was that the charge was borne by the employer of labour. A professional or a retired man paid practically nothing towards the scheme. There were other points he would like to raise but it would be hopeless to enter into any arguments that night. He was very pleased to second Mr May's proposition. (Applause).

Mr W. Manning, who said he represented the farm worker, supported the vote. He said he thought it was not fair for a farm worker to receive 31/- a week when other men were receiving three or four pounds. (Applause).

The Conservative Concert Party gave an excellent programme of songs &c., before and after the speeches, those contributing towards the programme being Messrs. F. Pearce, B. Richmond, A. Upchurch, and W. Allen.