Viewing page 38 of 255

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

went to Mrs. Mary Peters (wife of deceased) and complained to her his contract with her Husband. Her answer was (in presence of a responsible witness) that she would stand for the work already performed - and contracted with him, for the completion of the job. On finishing the work, he immediately called on Mrs. Peters for a settlement, which she refused to make, on the grounds, that the estate was responsible, and not herself, for the work performed. In explanation I would state, that at the time the bill was presented, it had transpired, that the estate was insolvent, and unable to pay its debts: had the opposite been the case, Mrs. Peters would have paid up promptly. The case was then brought before Wm. C. Charlton Justice of the Peace, who gave a decision as before stated. On an appeal being made to me as Military Commissioner, I made a partial investigation of the facts in the case, and being fully persuaded that justice had not been faithfully administered, I felt it my duty to reverse the decision of the magistrate; at least until I could have an opportunity of making a thorough investigation, both as regards the justness of the debt, and the apparent criminal action of the magistrate. I herewith enclose a copy of communication, mailed to Squire Charlton's address, which will explain more particularly, a certain item in the bill, which is the only one objected to by Mrs. Peters, on accord of being unauthorized by her --