Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/348

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

83& FEDEBÀIi BEFOBTEB. �BiERBAUEB V. WiRTH and othera. �{Circuit Gourt, E. D. Wiseonsin. December 22, 1880.) �1. CoNTHACT—lMMOKAiiCoNsiDEBATioii — Employer and Employe.— Expenses incurred by an employe in evading the process of a court, at the request and for the beneflt of his employer, cannot be recovered upon a promise of re-imbursement. — [Ed. �Mr. McKenney, for plaintifif. �Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Perles, for defendants. �Motion for a New Trial. �Dyeb, D. J. The question to be determined in this case arises on a motion for a new trial. The action is one brought by the plaintiff to recover for services rendered and disburse- ments alleged to have been made by him between the first day of April, 1875, and the first day of December, 1876, for the defendants, who were the managers of a rectifying and redistilling establishment at Milwaukee. At the trial, it was disclosed by the evidence introdueed on the part of the plain- tiff that about the first day of April, 1876, he was employed as a book-keeper at the defendants' place of business ; that he rendered legitimate services as suc h book-keeper from that day nntil the tenth day of May, 1875, when the defendants' establishment, together with a large number of distilleries and rectifying houses in Milwaukee, were seized by the gov- ernment for frauds upon the revenue. It appeared from the testimony given by the plaintiff himself that in the evening of the day of the seizure he made an arrangement with the defendants, or some of them, by which he was to go ont of the jurisdiction of this court, bo that he could not be reached by its process, and his attendance eompelled as a witness in behalf of the government and against the defendants, in for- feiture and criminal proceedings, which it was expected would follow the seizures, and that he should remain away until such proceedings should be terminated. It appeared, further, that the defendants promised him that in considera- tion of such service the salary agreed to be paid him in his original employment should continue, and that ail expenses ����