736 FEDBBAL BBPORTEB. �respect, (if we omit the bill of sale and accompanyingpaper,) and while his conduct may posaibly have been honest and fair, appearances are against him. The circumstances under which he claims to have purchased the boat are calculated to exoite suspicion, The situation of the libellant, an illiterate man, in necessitous circumstances, in the respondent's em- ployment; seriously embarrassed by the injury to his boat; the inadequacy of the alleged consideration; the resort to unfaimess, in arresting the libellant on a charge of larceny, to obtain possession, are circumstances which cannot be over- looked in considering the claim which the respondent sets up. His aclsnowledged offer of $50 to "get rid" of the libellant and obtain possession of the boat, just before making the charge of larceny, is not consistent with his claim; and his statement that if the repairs had been found to oost $500, he would have paid libellant $100, notwithstanding the contract did not require it, does not tend to inspire confidence in his candor. In short, while the libellant's statement seems con- sistent and probable, in itself, and is corroborated in important particulars, that of the respondent seems inconsistent and improbable, and is wholly without corroboration, — aside from the papers referred to. �I find, therefore, as matter of fact, that imposition was practiced in obtaining the libellant's signature, to the bill of sale and accompanying paper, and that the contract between the parties was simply for the services of the libellant and his boat, on the terms he bas stated. �If the contract amounted to a pledge of the boat for the sum advanced, (and it probably did,) the evidence, I think, jus- tifies a belief that respondent bas been paid by the money retained. �A decree wiU, for these reasons, be entered in favor of the libellant. ��� �
