John Baptise Guadaire v. John Baptise Carron
View original image: Page  023
[missing figure]
Baptiste
vs
John BJohn B Cannon

Appeal

Be it remembered that onmatter of a Labour
cause the counsel for the plaintiff offered
the following depositions (here of set it out)
the reading of which was objected to by the
Defendant's counsil because the plaintiffs had not shownhim to & because it did not appear to have
been taken according to the statues and the
absence of the witness Defendant at this time was not
proved the court overruled the objections (altho
as evidence or proof was advanced except what appears
from the deposition itself) and suffered the
deposition to be read to the jury without such proof
to which the defendants counsel exactly and
this hisbill of . The Plaintiff
him cloud his case without offering any other
testimony. The defendant that proved by
Mr.Detandebarz that the there was a written
agreement between the partiesor the
subject matter of this suit. That said said
written agreement was signed by both parties
but that he did not knowwhere it is. The court
excluded this testimony on the grounds that witness
was security in the appeal board. The Deft
then proved that on the trial of said cause
below. There was a written agreement between
the said parties
concerning the subject matter of this suit
to act relating to a such to be performed by the
said plaintiff for said Deft that such written agreement
was among the of this suit and was given

View original image: Page  024
[missing figure]
an evidence justice and that said
agreement was not denied by either party
altho they were both present. The Plaintiff
thenproved by the further that he said
having been among the papers at the Trial before him, or of its
had no recollection of said written agreement
The defendant, counsel then moved the court
to instruct the jury that there being a written
agreement found between the parties, proved
they must find for the Deft. The court refered
this instruction and said in the presence of
the jury that the proof of said written agreement
was very vague.

the Deft counsel then moved the court to
instruct the jury that that if they believe from
the evidence that there is a written agreement between
the parties does existrelation to the subject
matter of this suit they mustfind for the
Deft. The court overruled this
but instructed the jury that if they believe
that there was a written agreement between the parties for the performance of that trip such in
the on or power of the Plaintiff
they must find for the Deft. To either
decisions instructions of the court the
Deft by this counsel objects and , this
his bill of exceptions which is signed
by the court.

The Plaintiffs counsel then moved for
a new trial for the following reasons
(now set them )

Which instruction was overruled by the court
to which the Deft counsel
tendered his bill exceptions.