
    
      MARIE BERGEL f. w. c. vs. LANGLAIS.
    
    A claim of $300 with interest, authorises an appeal.
    Appeal from the court of the second district.
   Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff claims $300 with interest, for work and labour, as the defendant’s house-keeper.

He pleaded the general issue, and (in an amended answer) averred, that so far from his being indebted to her, she was so to him, in the sum of $50 for monies paid for her.

Breaud deposed, that about April, 1819, the plaintiff went to live in the defendant’s house as a servant and cook. He has heard the defendant say he was to give her $10 per month. He himself lived with the defendant for five or six months, during which the plaintiff served the latter; and at several periods, after the witness left the defendant, he saw the plaintiff serving him as a servant, cook, and house-keeper.

East'n District.

March, 1823.

Peche deposed, he knew the plaintiff while she was at the defendant’s, this was about three years ago; she was engaged as a house-keeper, &c. She left the defendant on the 28th July, 1821. Her services were worth $18 per month. After she left the defendant, she contracted a debt of $14 with the witness, which was paid by the defendant: at the time saying to the plaintiff “ you have said I owed you; I will pay this debt for you, although I do not expect to have it re-funded to me.” To which the plaintiff answered, “ I’ll pay you the amount at some other time.” This was some time after the plaintiff had left the defendant’s house, and after a spell of sickness, during which she attended him. He added, “ you know you are in my debt, and you have said publicly to the contrary.” To this the plaintiff answered nothing.

It was admitted, the defendant had paid for the plaintiff $17 to Dr. F. Montue, and $7 50 to Dr. F. Montue.

White, for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had judgment for $221 50, with interest from the judicial demand. The defendant appealed.

The plaintiff’s counsel urges that the appeal ought to be dismissed, because the matter in dispute does not exceed $300. The plaintiff claims $300 with interest, the demand therefore exceeded $300, by the interest.

The district judge allowed the plaintiff for 26 months, at $10 per month, and the defendant has a set-off of $38 80.

It does not appear to us that he erred. He heard the witnesses, and did not consider the plaintiff’s silence, as a proof of her admission that nothing was due her.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment be affirmed with costs.  