PAINE .t1. NORTHERN PAO. R. 00.
with !,ny rea.son to doubt the testimony of plaintiffs'witnesses, I would have 80 found myself. The wife hard a separate estate; she carried on the plantation for which supplies were bought; she shipped the crop with her own marks; the credit was given to her; the. accounts were kept in her name; the husband was absent on other busi'"; ness, and was without property and means. Under this proof it is easy to see how the jury refused to find that the husband carried on the place, with his wife as agent, and that the debt contracted for supplies was the husband's debt, which the wife gave the dran to pay. But be this as it may, the verdict of the jury on the issue submitted was supported by evidence, and cannot be said to be either against the law or the evidence. Nor can the verdict be said to be against the charge of the judge. given in these words: "Unless you are satisfied that the debt for was contracted for the benefit oUhe sepwhich this paper was arate estate of the defendant, who is a married woman, which latter fact is not controverted, you should find for the defendant." Un. doubtedly the jury was satisfied that the debt was contracted for the benefit of the separate estate of the defendant, for there was evidence submitted which, if credited, tended to show that fact... This case turned on a question of fact, and came within the province of the jury. There is evidence to support the finding; .the verdict ought not to be disturbed by the court. The motion for a new trial will be overrllied.
PAINE 11. NORTHERN PAO.
(otr/luie Oourl, D. Minneroea.
December Term, 1882.'
T1mePASll FOR (JtrrrING TIMBER-INSUP'FIOIENT DEFENBlll.
In a suit by the owner of land for damages for tim'bercut thereon by the licensee of the vendor, and for the vendor's use, the unrevoked pa.rol licell88 given by the vendor prior to the purchase by compla.inant is no defense.
Motion for New Trial. Ensign et Oash and Wilsan ct for plaintiff. P. Clough, for defendant. NELSON, D. J., (arally.) Abill ofe:x:ceptionswlL8settled and signed for' th e purpose of allowing a writ of error to the supreme court of the United States. .Amotion is made by t.he defendant, the Northern' Pacific Railroad Company, for a. new. trial. Bnit wasbrought.by Paine
..Aflirmed. See 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 823.
against the Northern Paoifio Railroad Company to recover the ."'!tlul of a large amount of timber that was out upon land owned by plaintiff and sold to him by the Northern Paoific Railroad Company. The principal defense set up by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company is that before they sold to Paine a parol license was given to ihe Knife Falls Water-power Company to cut upon this specific properJy, the latter agreeing to cut timber to a certain amount, and deliver to the former at a certain price. The Knife Falls Water-power Company went upon this land and cut the timber. Subsequent to this parol license the land was sold unoonditionally to Paine. There is no question but that the timber. was cut upon Paine's land after he purchased the property unconditionally. The defense is that this parol license previously given to :the Knife Falls Water-power Com. pany was never revoked, o.nd, that being so, it was a defense in this suit of Paine against the railroad company to recover the value of the timber. I held on the trial that such parol license was no defense ,to this action. A writ of error will be allowed, and the case may go to ihe supreml court upon the bill of exceptions as settled and signed.
(District (Jourt, 8. D. New York.
December 8, 1882.)
COLLISION-INEVITABLE ACCIDENT-BuRDEN OJ!' PROOF.
Where, in case of a collision at sea at night, the defense of inevitable accIdent is raised, and the main issue is whether the weather was such that the lights of one vessel could be seen in time by the other to enable her by due nautical skill to keep out of the way, held, that the burden of proof is upon libelants to show, not only that their lights were burning, but also that the weather was such that they could be seen a sufficient distance to avoid the collision.
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE-CREDmILITY OJ!' WITNESS.
Where the testimony of witnesses from the two colliding vessels was In Ir. reconcilable conflict as to the condition 6f the weather, held, that superior credit was due to those witnesses who were sustained by collateral evidence concerning the material subsidiary points respecting the force of the wind and time of the commencement of the rain, storm, and gale.
CoSTS ON DISMTSSAL--RULE OF.
Upon contradictory evidence as to the state of the weather, the libel in thia case was dismissed on the ground of inevitable accident; but the case bein" doubtful on the merits, and the claimant's vessel haVing remained practically in concealment from the libelants for a year after the collision, held, that the