Cnv-rau-xo v. Mrs, Kisa, intift claimed $12.52, on a washing account.
Defendant said she, did not owe plaintiff that amount, and was' the impression she was not indebted to him at all, YaxG HEDING, jun, officiated as inter-
Plaintiff said he had washed 763 articles for defendant, for which ho charged at the rate of $2.50 per hundred. He had been paid some money by er, leaving the Ualauee due hit, which showed that O04 articles ad beet Defendant produced ker washing book,
washed, and said her arrangement with plain tiff was that he should be paid $2 per hundred in the cold season and $3 during the hot weather. She had employed a legal gentleman to make up her book in order to meet this case (for which she was charged $10), and the result showed that she was not indebted to anything like the amount claimed—if at all, Plaintiff also produced a book, and, after calculating, said that the number of articles washed was 694 and,.not 763. He namer other persons for whom he did washing, who paid him $2.50 per hundred.
Defendant had' herself procured customers for plaintiff at $2 per hundred, and she know of one at least who paid him lees thi hat, Besides his attempted overcharge, plaintiff had lost " number of articles, including three towels, a pair of gentleman's cuffs, napkin, &e., and when spoken to about replacing them, ho laughed and behaved often sively.
Plsintie, on being now questioned, said he had returned all the arti he had taken to wash.
Defendant denied this, and several times asked to be placed on oath as to the truth of 3g. her state me The account in the book produced by plaintiff, she had allowed him to take from her book. account, and ultimately found there was a His Hoxour carefull examined the j
miscalculation, the result showing that defendant was indebted to plaintiff to the extent of $6.66, at the rate of $2 per hundred, which he was' willing to believe was the arrange-tment made.—Judgment was accordingly ontered for plaintiff for that amount, with costs, Wou-naxo v. A. Fouuzr.
Plaintiff, a youth, who was accompanied by his mother, claimed $8, alleged balance of wages due him, Defendant paid $1.60 into Court, as being the amount he was indebted. He said plaintiff and his mother lived in the next house to his, and the boy had for-a long time done coolie work for him, On the 13th March last, ho engaged him regularly at $2 per month, and his food, and he remained until Monday niorning Inst, when he went away, owing to the inflaence of his mother, and she would not let him return. The mother was the cause of all the trouble.
Plaintiff tried to make it appear that he had been in defendant's: employ for four months, and that his wages were to be $3 per month. The night before he left, plaintiff had punished him.
the mother also began talking to the same effect, and not keeping quiet.when told, was put out of Court. After the mother had left Hooks would show that $2 for each of the two the $1.60 he lind paid into Court being for the 20 days of the third. He not receivell the change out of $2 he had actually paid into Court, to settle the matter Ly allowing the plaintiff to have the $2, No application for payment was made to him by plaintiff or his mother, before be received. tf summons, It was true that on the night before: plaintiff went away, he slapped his face for some: fault lio had committed, but did not hurt him.
Alter further enquiry, it appeared that plaintiff had miscalculated the time he was with defendant, His Hoxoun directed the interpreter to'tell iff that the investigation "showed was not regularly in defendant's employ for four, but actually for less than three, months, and that his wages were to be per month. There was only an amount $1.60 due for the 20 days of the third month he had worked, but defendant was willing to let him have the $2 he had paid into Court, and ao settle the case, POLICE COURT, Shanghai, Juno 7th,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.