Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/746

 734 FEDERAL REPORTER. �for hiring, (of himself and the boat,) and lie understood the paper as relating to tliis. �The allegation of frand must be proved. The libellant is preaumed, (in the absence of evidence to the contrary,) to have known the contents of the paper, when signing. The burden of proof is, therefore, on him. �Some weeks preceding the date of the paper, the reapond- ent had contracted with the libellant for his services, and the use of his boat. The libellant entered upon the service, and a few days after, (he being detained at home by the condition of his family,) respondent took possession of the boat, and by improper loading, sunk and damaged it. Eepairs being thus rendered necessary, the boat was taken to Mr. Tilton's yard, and a bill for $400 contracted. What proportion of this was for repairs rendered necessary by the accident, and what by rea- son of the boat's previous condition, is not clear ; but I have no doubt nauch the smaller part is referable to the former cause. The boat appears to have been in fair condition for the use being made of it before the accident, but after this occurrence libellant resolved to strengthen and improve it. Thus far the statements of the parties do not materially differ, — (saving as relates to the extent of the injury sustained by sinking.) Here, however, they separate. The libellant, says the re- spondent, in consideration of having injured the boat, became surety for the repairs resolved upon, and contracted for the service of himself and the boat, at $25 per week, $15 of which were to ,be retained weekly, until the bill for repairs should be paid; that when he signed the bill of sale, and the other paper accompanying it, he understood them to express this agreement, neither being read to him, and that he knew no better until respondent exhibited and read them in answer to his demand for settlement, when a claim to the boat was first set up ; that on completion of the repairs he continued in respondent's employment, as before he had been, for a period of over six munths, and then, believing respondent had been paid by the weekly retention of $15, under the con- tract, he demanded a settlement; whereupon the respondent ��� �