Sacramento daily record-union., 1890-03-07
BOLD BAGWELL.
JUDGE BUCKLES HANDLES All SINGS
ENEMY WITHOUT GLOVES.
His Claim for Nearly 81, 900 Cut Down to
S131-Bagwelrs Fearful and Won
derful Testimony Criticised.

The readers of the RECORD UNION will
remember the somewhat sensational par
ticulars of the case of H. w. Bagwell VS..
All Sing, which was heard before Judge
Van Fleet few months ago on motion
by the defendant to have the Court set
aside certain confession of judgment
made by Ah Sing in favor of Bagwell. 1t
was shown to the satisfaction OF the Court
that the confession had been obtained from
the Chinaman by means of fraudulent
representations, and a new trial was or
dered.
The case was tried couple of weeks ago
before Judge Buckles of Solano, who yes
terday filed in the Court here his decision.
In reviewing the facts of the case, the
Judge said that plaintiff claims balance
due from All Sing of 1854 for horse-hire,
$l25 for work as carpenter on the hop
house, and $50 for labor in drying hops,
making in all 1919, but his complaint de-
mands judgment for $500 only. There is
no dispute" he says, las to the fact that
the parties entered into a contract for the
hiring by defendant of plaintiffs horses, to
use in putting in and cultivating crop of
hops raised in the year 1889 by defendant
on 20 acre tract of land. The question is
as to the terms of that contract, the num-
Der of horses used and the time they were
worked.
1.-THE plaintiff says the contract was that
defendant should have all the horses he
wanted, at so cents day each, and should
pay plaintiff so cents day for the feed of
each horse used (tben there is no allega-
ton in the complaint claiming anything
for horse. feed), and that defendant had the
use of his horses equal to one horse for 694
days, and that the plaintiff fed the horses
during that time.
'sThe defendant says the contract was
that he should have the horses for 25 cents
q day each, and that plaintiff was to have
the wood from certain land the defendant
was to clear; that he used plaintiffs horses.
to the extent of one horse for 335 days. and
that plaintiff had the wood.
"The lease under which defendant occu-
pied the twenty acres was introduced to
show that defendant had contracted, as a
part consideration for this lease, that he
would deliver the wood to plaintiff. But
the lease bears date June %, 1889, while
the contract was made for the hiring of the
horses long time prior thereto, and the
clearing done.
Defendant claims in a cross-complaint
that plaintiff received from one Wagner
the sum of $678 80 conceded to be $679),
for the use and benefit of the defendant,
and had never paid the same over.
1.-THE testimony of the plaintiff as to the
contract of hiring and the number of
horses used by che defendant is wholly un-
supported by any reliable testimony offered
by him, and is surrounded by so many cir
cumstances tending very strongly to dis
credit it that find myself IN that condition
of mind that l cannot believe his statement
on these points. These circum-
stances think show that no reliance what
ever can be placed on the plaintiffs horse
hire account, and but little in his testimony
in relation thereto. Further, the account
is unreasonable in this-he charges for the
use of horses nearly every day from Janu-
ary to August. The defendants
accounts, and his testimony in relation
thereto, bear greater semblance of truth
than the accounts and testimony of plaintiff
on the subject.
From what evidence there is, l must
conclude that the plaintiff fed the horses
lat so cents day each); that the feed was
worth so cents day, and for 335 days
would amount to $167 80. The items of
plaintiff g claim which find to have been
proven. are as follows: Horse hire Zone
horse for 1876 days at 25 cents per day.,
$S3 75; feed for the same at so cents day,
S167 so; carpenter work on hop-house,
S125; work at drying hops, $50, making
total of his claim proven OF S43l %.
1.-The only entries of account made by
plaintiff which are free from the suspicion
OF being manufactured accounts are those
made in the pass-book given TO defendant.
These entries account for the distribution
of portion of the $3.50 received from
Wagner for the use and benefit of the de-
fendant, and are: Cash, SIS 90; lime, 81;
carpenter work. $6S; cash for hop-pipe, $7S;
cash for hop-pickers, S27 so; cash, $10
cash, 81 so; cash, 80 cents. Total, $203 80.
To those may be added: Taxes, $40; ladders,
49, blacksmithing, $23 so; groceries, $50;
to pay hop -pickers, $35.
81 find that of the $759 there has been
paid out $45S S0 leaving in plaintiffs
hands the sum of $500 20, which belongs
to the defendant.
"As to the claim that Mrs. Bagwell (wife
of the plaintiff), had paid out the greater
portion of this money, the Judge concludes
that "her statements are not sufficiently re-
liable to increase the amount above stated
as the sum paid out.
81 have considered concludes Judge
Buckles, "all the testimony introduced,
and it seems to me from that, and from all
the circumstances appearing in the case
the interest and bias of the witnesses and
their manner of testifying-that there is
not sufficient reliable testimony in the case
to show that plaintiff has ever paid out for
the use of the defendant more than the
said sum of $45S 80.
"All the circumstances surrounding the
drawing up and signing of the agreement
that defendant was indebted to plaintiff in
the sam of 1874 81, as detailed by the
witness, after the suit was commenced,
show transaction SO tainted with fraud
such determined effort to over-reach the
Chinese defendant-as to give the agree
ment no weight whatever in establishing
the plaintiffs claim.
For the reasons above stated, the plain
tiff is entitled to judgment for the differ
ence between $500 20 and $431 25, which
would be the sum of $131 05, and it is so
ordered