SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE. Apr. Term,

it some time in June;" that when he asked for the $250 gold, he said that he was embarrassed and asked him "to see if Mr. Candi would purchase the boiler;" that he never said to Janel that he did not owe the $250, United States currency.
As to the first point in the briefs, the burden of proof was on the appellant to show the failure to deliver in full what the contract called for. No rescission of the contract was proposed by the appellant nor demand shown for the articles which are alleged to have been undelivered.
There is evidence that the house was partly demolished on the 25th of September, the date of the contract, and there is also evidence that some of the lumber of the buildings hal been removed; but the appellant may have known the former and may not have been damaged in either case.
The conduct of appellant and his failure to establish his defense by a preponderance of the evidence justifies the decision below
Finding no material error in the record, the judgment of the Court below is affirmed at appellant's costs.
The CHIEF JUSTICE concurred.
Affirmed.
CANAL ZONE versus STOUT.
No. 42. No argument or brief-Decided August 21. 1908.
Appeal by defendant from the Circuit Court of the Second judicial Circuit of the Canal Zone; Hon. H. A. Gudger, Judge.
T. C. Hincklev, for appellant. G. Al. Shontz, for the Canal Zone.
F. MUTIS DURAN, C.j. An information was filed in the Second judicial Circuit against the defendant, charging him with murder; he was duly arraigned, tried before a jury and found guilty of murder in the first degree.
Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were made and overruled and the defendant was sentenced to he

120