Case ID: ohio-ch_1/html/0242-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Court. Wright, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LAWSON v. PERRY.
    Assumpsit — implied in law — release by a witness — competent witness — color of parties--* costs.
    A part owner ofa boat who has become insolvent and assigned his interest, reserving a right to the residuum of his effects, if any, is incompetent as a witness for his co-partner.
    Quen?, if a release by him to the party calling him, will make him competent.
    Where a man is employed in a particular business, but nothing is said about the wages, the law implies a promise to pay the common wages for such service.
    That a party to a suit is a colored man no otherwise affects it than to impose upon the jury the obligation to avoid its influence.
    If the situation of the parties be such that the plaintiff must rely upon the books of the defendant, a jury should require of the defendant more perfect proof of his defence.
    If a plaintiff in assumpsit recover less than 150 dollars he recovers no costs.
    Assumpsit, for wages as steward of the steamboat Pioneer. The plaintiff proved the service and the common rate of wages. The defendant proved certain payments, and then called Austin as a witness, who admitted that he had been part owner of the Pioneer, but having failed he had assigned his interest to Perry, having now no interest except in the residuum, should there be any.
    Hawes, for the plaintiff,
    objected that the witness was interested. Court. He seems directly interested.
    
      N. Wright,
    then tpok from the witness a release to Perry.
    
      Hawes
    
    still objected.
   Court.

We will reject the evidence, and the question as to the release can be mooted hereafter if the defendant desire it.

Wright, J.

to the jury. The plaintiff claims for wages as steward of the Pioneer. If he has satisfied you of the service, the law raises the presumption that he'was to have common wages, which in this case is admitted to be $25 a month, tie will be entitled to recover at that rate during the time he was employed unless the defendant shall have shown you by affirmative testimony some understanding between the parties inconsistent with the presumption of law. The defendant is also to show you the payments, if any. You have nothing to do with the color of the plaintiff, except to take care not to be influenced by the circumstance, that be is not of your color. The relation of the parties is no otherwise material than to ascertain if from the nature of the employment the plaintiff must of necessity rely upon the defendant’s officers and books for his accounts. If so, it imposes upon'the defendant a stronger obligation to show to you by clear evidence, the precise transaction and payments.

Verdict for the plaintiff, $94 50.

Defendant moved for a new trial, which was overruled and judgment entered on the verdict without costs.