Claim $20, for goods sold and delivered, Defendant admitted his liability to the extent of $1425, and said that plaintiff, who was a boot and shoe maker, had been in the habit of supplying him with boots and shoes for the last twelve months, Ho had recommended him to other customers, and very Intely had discovered that shoes which plaintiff charged him $4 per pair, he had only charged his friends $3.00 per pair, therefore (defendant) had cut $6 for six pairs of shoos supplied during the year.
plaintiff aid that ho had charged $3 per pair for shoes for cash only.
Defendant said. that when he made the de-Auction in the bill, the plaintiff agreed to take the amount due, less the $6,00 Plaintiff said that he made the agreement viding ho was' paid the let duy of December, to accept the amount the deduction pro-
but as he had not been paid, he now claimed the full amount. paid once a year he thought that plaintiff His Worsmir said that if defendant onl
was justified in making a higher charge than he would on a cash transaction, But apart from that, the plaintiff must have judgment on the simple ground that he had agreed to supply goods at 'a certain price, and that having supplied them, he w: paid the contract price, whet! or lower than' the price for which h
ment with costs for the plainti other customers with the axine good Wa-smile v, F. W. Texpcemore, Claim $5, for work and labour done, Defendant not appearing, and plaintiff having proved his claim, judgment was given by
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.