[riddell] practice OE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 53 



Defendant appeared and says that he owes nothing to the Plaintiff, 

 but that he is indebted to him Two hundred and Thirty-one Livres, 

 for which he prays to become an incidental Plaintiff, and filed the 

 Plaintiff's engagement subscribed by him at Detroit and offers to bring 

 proof that the defendant did not perform his engagement, and also 

 files the account, items of which he begs leave to prove." On the 

 10th he called "John McGregor of full age and not interested" but all 

 he said was ''that he does not know anything respecting the matter 

 in Question." Then he called Raphael Bellongir who said "Que lui 

 ettoit en compagne avec Antoine Jalbert quant le dite Jalbert avoit 

 laisser le service du Défendeur le dix septième de mai." The case 

 came on again Sept. 17th, when judgment was given dismissing the 

 action with costs. It seems that Jalbert claimed that he had been 

 employed by Schiffelin to go into the Indian Country to Saginan an 

 Indian Post, to help him in the fur trade, but was discharged by him 

 and accordingly claimed £20 - 16 - 8, Halifax currency, as wages — • 

 the defendant set up that Jalbert did not perform his engagement, 

 and he claimed 231 livres as due him by Jalbert. Nothing is said 

 in the judgment about this counte^rclaim. 



August 27th. " Catherine Desriviere La Moinodiere Deguindre vs. 

 Her Husband, Antoine Dagnio Deguindre" Declaration filed, defendant 

 noted in default: Sept. 3, second default, Sept. 10 defendant still in 

 default. Plaintiff ordered to produce her evidence next Court day 

 at 9 o'clock in the morning: Sept. 17, the defendant being again absent, 

 the plaintiff produced her marriage contract and called witnesses 

 who gave evidence in French — I give a sample: — 



"Question 2nd. by Mr. Roe — Si lui connaît les Ettat de ces 

 affaire? Ans. Que non." 



"Question 4th by Mr. Roe: — Avez vous entendu dire que ce meubles 

 ettes vendu, et par quil? Ans. Que lui avoit entendu dire que l'ont 

 ettè vendu a L'Ençon." 



"Question 5th by Mr. Roe: — Si l'ont ettè vendu par le Sherifïe? 

 Ans. Je ne sai pas." 



This is rather better than the French in another place "il se pas." 



There is considerable evidence about "une Seizer au chez le Dé- 

 fendeur;" and then the case stands over till next Court. Sept. 24th 

 it again stands over for eight days — and the record of all furthei pro- 

 ceedings is lost. 



Sept. 3. In Thomas Cox v. William Gyeaux, the Sheriff had made a 

 seizure but could not proceed with the sale till " the claims of the different 

 opponents are first satisfied and paid or secured upon the proceeds." 



Nicholas Gyeaux, nephew of William, produced witnesses who 

 testified that he "a proposer seminez la Terre de son oncle a motie" 



