Case Name: White v. Moreno
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1841-01
Citations: 17 La. 371
Docket Number: 
Parties: White v. Moreno.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 226–228

Head Matter:
White v. Moreno.
Pleas in compensation or reconvention should be set forth ■with the same certainty as to amounts, dates, &c, as if the party opposing them were himself a plaintiff in a direct action. Compensation must bo specially pleaded. — See 6 L. T5 (II), and casos there noted.
Appkal from the court of the third district, for the parish of East Baton ¡Rouge, the judge thereof presiding.
This is an action to recover the sum of $1400, the value of the plaintiff’s services as an assistant clerk to the defendant for upwards of two years, according to an account annexed.
The defendant pleaded a general denial, and required strict proof; but admitted the plaintiff was in his employment as assistant clerk about eighteen months; and that from his dissipation and incompetency to discharge the duties of his station, his services were not worth more than $20 per month; which has been fully paid and compensated. He further avers that the plaintiff is indebted to him in the sum of $600, for cash advanced and bills paid for him to several persons mentioned, for which he prays judgment in reconvention, after dismissing the plaintiff’s demand.
Upon these pleadings and issues the parties went to trial before the court and a jury. The plaintiff produced the testimony of various witnesses to establish the value of his services and the amount of his demand.
The defendant offered the individuals to whom he averred he had paid bills in compensation of the plaintiff’s account to the amount of $600, to which testimony the plaintiff objected on the ground that there was no averment in the defendant’s answer of the specific amounts and dates of said payments made to each of said witnesses; and the objection was sustained by the court, to which decision the defendant’s counsel excepted.
There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $577, and after an unavailing effort to obtain a new trial, the defendant appealed.
Morgan, for the plaintiff,
urged the, affirmance of the judgment. [372] The evidence offered was properly rejected,-because the plea of compensation was not set forth in sueh a manner as to authorize the reception of the evidence. Pleas in compensation should be set forth with the same certainty as to amounts, dates, &c., as if the party was himself plaintiff. Code of Practice, art. 367.
Erntis, for the appellant,
insisted that the bill of exceptions was well taken. The averments in the answer, coupled with the relations of the parties as disclosed in the petition, are sufficient to authorize the admission of the evidence. The names of the persons to whom the sums were paid were given in the answer, and their testimony would have made them specific as to amounts and dates.
2. The weight of evidence is such as to authorize this court for the purposes of justice to award a new trial.

Opinion:
Hoepiiy, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff claims $1400 for his salary during two years and four months as assistant clerk of the defendant in the district, parish and probate courts, in and for the parish of East Baton Kouge. The answer admits the services of plaintiff, but charges him with neglect and unskilfulness in the discharge of his duties-, and with habits of dissipation, in consequence of all which his services are alleged to have been at no time worth more than $20 per month. The defendant farther avers that plaintiff is indebted unto him in the sum of $600, for cash advanced and bills paid for account of plaintiff to divers persons, which sum he offers as an offset against the plaintiff's claim. The case was submitted to a jury, who gave plaintiff a verdict for $577. After an effort to set it aside, the defendant appealed.
Our attention has been drawn to a bill of exceptions to the opinion of the judge below, who refused to hear witnesses to prove the payment of the $600 [373] alleged to have been paid to plaintiff. The reason assigned by the judge was that there were no allegations in the defendant's answer of the specific amounts paid to each of the witnesses, and the dates of the said payments made by the defendant. "We think that he decided correctly. Article 367, of the Oode of Practice, requires compensation to be pleaded specially. Pleas in compensation or in reconvention should be set forth with the same certainty as to amounts, dates, &c., as if the party opposing them were himself a plaintiff in a direct action. The reasons for so doing are the same in both cases. It was perhaps the more necessary in the present instance, as the testimony was offered to contradict plaintiff's answer to an interrogatory propounded by defendant, in relation to this amount or sum of $600, alleged to have been paid to him. The answer was that the plaintiff had received only $394 62, of which there was about $200 paid by defendant in cash.
As to the merits of this case as exhibited by the record, there appears to have been some difference of opinion as to the value of plaintiff's services. It has also been proved that some time was lost in consequence of the plaintiff's occasional dissipation; for this, however, the jury appear to have made some allowance. Upon the whole, we are not prepared to say there is manifest error in the verdict; or that the purposes of justice require that the ease should be remanded for a new trial.
The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed, with costs.