In 1937 witness gave plaintiff some work to do but it was spoilt when it was turned over to inexperienced assistant. Witness added that he refused to pay a full bill and plaintiff accepted $70 as payment for the work done. No receipt was issued for this amount. Other payments were $10 in September, $30 in November and $50 at the Chinese New Year period in 1937, said Mr. Doyle. Plaintiff admitted having received these amounts.
Mr. Doyle went on to say that the tailor had caused him much embarrassment and had hired zn old Chinese woman to reform "circus act" in front of his house. This old woman, he said, had presumably been told by plaintiff to wait ou: side his home znd throw he in front of an on-coming motor car.
Judge Lurton asked the defendant what proof he had that the bills were not genuine. The burden of proof was on hu he added. He would, therefore, adjourn the case to allow defendant time to prove his claim that bills were not just. This he had not done et the hearing
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.