Steinegul

Plaintiff brings the action as assignee of twenty-four separate claims for labor performed by certain Japanese for defendant, aggregating $804.

The cause was tried by the court and plaintiff had judgment, from which defendant appeals on bill of exceptions.

The court found that defendant admitted on the trial of the action “that all of the persons named in the complaint had performed labor for the number of days stated in said complaint.” The court also found that the defendant hired said persons at the agreed price of $2 per day for ordinary laborers and $2.50 per day for foremen.

The sole point in dispute is whether the men were employed by the defendant and to be paid by the defendant, or whether the contract of employment was made with one Howe upon what is termed a “force contract”—i. e., Howe to furnish the men and to pay them and the company to pay Howe. No controversy arises over the rate of the wages to be paid, for that fact appeared substantially without conflict, as well as the fact that the men performed the labor claimed in the complaint.

The contention of appellant is that the findings rest mainly upon the testimony of witness Howe, which, it is claimed, was…