BABGB NO. 6 '7S6 �became angry, claimed possession of the boat, ordered him away, and directly after, under pretence that he had stolen the boat, (which was taken.with him,) had him arrested, and todk the boat. . The respondent, on the other hand, denies becoming security for the repairs, or hiring the libellant and boat, after the accident ; saying that when the repairs were about being completed, the libellant, fearing his boat would be sold on account of them, solicited him to purchase it, and that after some hesitation he did so, for |500, — paying Mr. Tilton $400, less a discount of $25, for cash, — and $100 to libeUant's wife, at his request, and took the bill of sale, an^i aocompanying paper, (which he read to the libellant befofe signing,) as evidence of the transaction. �Which of these conflioting statements is true ? That of the libellant is corroborated, and the other contradicted, by Mr. Tilton, to the estent that he heard the parties talking when at his place, about $24 or $25 per week for the use of the vessel, and says respondent was surety for the repairs. It is also corroborated by the respondent's failure to produce re- ceipts or book-en tries, for payment of anything on account of the alleged purchase, to the libellant or his wife; and the tes- timony of the wife that no such payment was made to her, as respondent states. The subscribing witnesses to the bUl of sale and aocompanying paper, say neither was read in their presence ; that they did not know the contents of either, and did not heair a sale spoken of at the time, nor at any time. Neither Mr. Tilton, who repaired the boat, and saw a good deal of respondent in connection with it, nor any other wit- ness ealled, ever heard either of the parties refer to a sale or transfer of the boat, — so far as appears. On completion of the repairs libellant resumed possession of the boat and em- ployed it, preoisely as he had done before, f urnishing aU necessary supplies, (except chains, anchors, etc., procured at the time of repairing,) and any third person would certainly have believed, from appearances, that he continued to be the owner, and have been justified in dealing with him as such. On the other hand the respondent is not corroborated in any ��� �
