The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-06-06

w. ~ scsssn und:s Is Hsehaaies Len law brought
= q ss sns.n , ssss
sn4 nshts s,ssss s.nsd y 6 the defendant Ps.sos
appeared By evidnss inst OConnor agreed to erect
the buding foI Psaxce for the Of e. TO- and tn ct
the last payment not 70 Be- made untn the house was
and that 6connor failed to comply With bis Contract
Judge Phillips said The Hen holder can be IN no better
cover against the owner under the contract the lien
holder must fail. After careful examination of the
evidence am satisfied that there ha. not been sub
judgment therefore given for the defendant Pearce
with costs Under the evidence, the defendant OCon
their claim Ordered Judgment for plaintiffs srainst
O'Connor for sl62 OF, with costs and yl2 allowance.
Ler, Myers ~: nc PaHawo Railroad Compaay-The
plaintiff claims to the value Of services rendered
the defendants superintendent Of station It AhorcA
Lsgata ON the Isthmus Of Panama. The value Of
day The defendants resist the action and put in vi
dence written contract sde BY the plaintiff with the
defendants BY which plaintiff agreed to serve defendants
Of compensation to be fixed by Geo. n Totten the eng
neer of the work. at Panama At the foot Of the CON
he had the pay Of the Ds al 3 Sc peF
without stating when the rate of pay was fixed The
defendants also insist that plaintiff acted super
intendent but that the only position held by him vas
that Of sub-foreman and foreman, and that he IS
bound by the terms Of his agreement and the rateef
sn q n 8,
In the employ Of the company in which the plaintiff
addressed that there two gangs
Of track layers at Ahorca Lagata, each Of which had
foreman who received their ord from plaintiff that
there . gravel train at that station, under the
charge Of conductor who also received directions from
the plaintiff.
Judge Phllips-The plaintiff was bound by the terms
Of his contract to the defendants foreman Of
tracklayers and to work in any capacity in connection
Herewith to which he might be appointed The weight
Of proof that the plaintiff did occupy the position
perform the duties Of "supern of station The
only question of importance to be decided in this matter
is whether the plaintiff is bound by the Of compen
sation fixed by Col Totten. The memorandum at the
foot Of the contract fixing the pay bears date Col
Totten does say that he fixed the pay Of plaintiff 90 so
per day. as sub foreman" and that when he Colonel
Toten to this city he again fixed that rate at the
request of the secretary Of the company But Is also
in evidence that plaintiff applied for his wages at
Panama. he then informed that his rate Of pay had
not yet been fxsd am clearly Of opinion that the
arbitrary Fat Of COL Totten in fixing the OF copen
saon to be paid him. The discretion TO be exercised by
the engineer Of the work. in that respect, to be
fair and sound discretion. In where parties
poyed agreed to leave the compensation entirely to the
employer, the enploye may what the employer
ought to give q Peters Rep PIP /, 49, 2S Parsons
Contract 636; Bryant Flight, and W., 114) 1t
appears that plaintiff worked fourteen days fore
man. for this allow % 30 per day-amountng to e35;
and also that he acted In the capacity of supernten
dent" about seventy days. for which allow him at the
rate of "a 80 per day-making total Of $780, from
which deduct $110 paid account by defendants and
the balance due plaintiff is $40 for which sum Judgment
is ordered with costs, and s12 allowance by statute