DISTRICT COURT FOR THE, CANAL ZONE.

claims were obligations for which the defendant should respond to him, the plaintiff, but as these outstanding accounts were not paid by the plaintiff it is difficult to see how they can be considered as an obligation against the defendant and in his favor.
It further appears that from June to, and inclusive of, October, 1914, the plaintiff received from defendant the following sums of money: In June, $50 United States currency, in July, $210 United States currency, in August, $50 United States currency, in September, $80 United States currency, in October, $80 United States currency, and that in September he derived from the sale of oranges the sum of $22 United States currency; making in all a total of $492 United States currency. The contract of employment between the plaintiff and defendant was such that plaintiff would be presumed to have received his salary out of these cash payments made to him by the defendant and out of the sale of the proceeds of the farm unless a contrary showing is made to appear. However, the plaintiff does not account in a satisfactory manner for the cash sums received by him from the defendant so as to preclude the presumption that they were sufficient to pay his salary after defraying the other expenses of the plantation. The attempt on the part of the plaintiff to offset, as against this, certain outstanding bills of certain tradespeople is not sustained because of the fact, in the first place, as before stated, many of the articles purchased seem to have been for the personal use and benefit of the plaintiff alone, and also because the outstanding bills have not been paid by the plaintiff but, on the contrary, constitute outstanding obligations directly against the defendant.
In other words, a careful consideration and investigation of the accounts fail to sustain, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there remains due the plaintiff any sum by way of wages or otherwise. The defendant is, therefore, entitled to judgment herein, dismissing the action of the plaintiff, and to his costs.
GOVERNMENT versus FAJARDO.
(District Court, Canal Zone, Balboa Division, October 21, 1915.)
Criminal No. 324.
1. JURISDICTION.
Under Section 34, Laws of the Canat, Zone, where any part of the crime is cornmitted in the Canal Zone, the courts of the Canal Zone have jurisdiction to try
the defendant charged with such crime.
2. CONSPIRACY.
Where Miller and Fajardo were jointly charged with conspiracy to defraud, and,
separate trials were demanded, and Fajardo was first tried and convicted but upon the trial of Miller he was found not guilty. Held, that Miller having been