Harris v. Wade

Headnote

This was an action to recover for work and labor of plaintiff upon a farm, one-half of which was owned and the other half leased by defendant. The defence was that plaintiff was hired by and performed the work for defendant’s husband. The principal questions were as to the referee’s findings of fact. Held, that there was evidence sufficient to sustain his findings; also, that as there were no exceptions to the findings or to his refusal to nonsuit, the questions were not properly before this court. As bearing upon the question as to whom the' credit was given, evidence was offered on the part of plaintiff for the purpose of showing that defendant’s husband was at the time of the hiring notoriously insolvent, and among other things evidence of large judgments against him. These were objected to as “ improper and irrelevant.” Held, that the evidence might well be proper for the purpose assigned, but that the objection was insufficient to present the question, as it did not appear that the attention of the referee

was called by any specific objection to the precise point; i. e., that it was improper to show such insolvency.