This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
DECEMBER TERM, 1867.
13

Waldron vs. Evans.


2. If the jury find from the evidence that a contract was entered into between the parties, by which the plaintiff was to do chores and carpenter work and furnish cows in consideration of his board and washing, and the jury further find from the evidence that the appointment of Deputy Provost Marshal or clerk to the Provost Marshal, constituted any part of the consideration of said contract, then they will treat such contract as absolutely void, and the plaintiff will not be precluded from recovering the value of his labor.

3. If the jury find from the evidence that a contract was entered into between the parties, by which the plaintiff was to do chores and carpenter work and furnish cows in consideration of his board and washing, and the jury further find from the evidence that a change made by defendant in appointing plaintiff clerk to Provost Marshal at Yankton, instead of Deputy Provost Marshal at Vermillion or Bon Homme, constituted any part of the consideration of said contract, then they will treat such contract as absolutely void, and the plaintiff will not be precluded from recovering the value of his labor.

ADDITIONAL REQUESTS OF THE PLAINTIFF.

1. If the jury believe from the evidence that at the settlement in February, 1865, and 2d September, 1865, the settlement had reference to the cash accounts alone (so called) and did not embrace or include the carpenter work, and that on such settlement on the 2d September of the cash account, there was found a balance due Evans of $79.10, or $78.50, and the carpenter work was not included and has not been paid for, then the plaintiff would be entitled to pay for said carpenters, and in addition thereto said agreed balance of $79.10 together with interest on the same.

2. If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff kept a fair book accounts of the work on the buildings, and the cash account, and has produced that book in evidence before you,—this fact of the plaintiff's production of his book of account is evidence strongly corroborative of his testimony; and on the other hand, if Mr. Waldron kept no book account or has not produced any book of such fact, of Waldron's not