Sena Sixau v, Urram Vhis was an action to reenver the of $:2 for debt. and &8 costs, for which judgment, had last been given the Court on 24th August, 1899, Plaintiff said that he first got judgment in October, 1898, and again in March of ust your, "Phe original jud: was for $92, of which he hat received S15 paid into court, He had nly receival $3. Phe defendant was No. 1 watchman at the Jaou Kung Mow Cotton Mill and was paid $16 per month, Defendant said he was paying the money and had up $36 in all, He bad no receipts but could bring witnesses that he hud done so, He had paid 818 into court, Ae did not pay this month, Mr. Macdonald, in reply to His Honour, said the date of the Inst payment Court was 7th of August, 1899. The judgment summons was 3rd of March, 1899. Defendant had paid nothing since August last.
Defendant said ho had been out of employment for two months and could not pay, but he had been paying for six months, He had now been in employment three months at S16 per month. He aving $6 a month for the last months to another Anion and"
Iintifly recalled, said he had received 818 from defendant's brother, besides what was paid into court. altogether he had received $33. The money wns paid on the Qnd or Bed of the month. This month and last month he lad got nothing.
His Honour ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff the sam of $9 on or before the Ist of June, and said he would adjourn the case till then; if defendant had not that he with an iron bar by defendant Defendant altogether denied using the weapon.
'After deliberating in private the Court found that only a common assault hat mitted and imposed a fine of (35), or three days' i defendant also to pay the nse rman law allowed, after which iff should pay the rest. ment was not severe, as Pasche have been vexed in some way. by the Chinaman, The asswlt with the iron bar had not been prover in any way.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.