150 So. 854 | La. | 1933
Plaintiff has sued defendant for the sum of $1,875 damages for the alleged forcible taking by defendant of a truck from plaintiff's premises, thereby causing to him the loss of a contract to haul piling for 130 days, which plaintiff avers would have netted him a profit of $7.50 a day.
Plaintiff also prays for judgment condemning defendant to restore the truck, or, in default of his so doing, for judgment against defendant in the sum of $200, the alleged value of the truck.
Plaintiff has attempted to prosecute this suit in forma pauperis, and has annexed to his petition an affidavit that he is unable because of his poverty and lack of means to pay the present or future costs of this litigation, or to give bond for payment of same.
Act No. 156 of 1912, as amended by Act No. 260, of 1918.
The trial judge sustained the motion of defendant to traverse plaintiff's affidavit, and *133 ordered plaintiff to secure the costs or make bond for same, and plaintiff has appealed.
The statement of facts and opinion of the trial judge are as follows:
"Evidence was adduced on behalf of both plaintiff and defendant, and this court, therefore, dictates the following statement of facts:
"As gathered from the evidence it is shown that plaintiff owned at the time this suit was brought — it is shown that he had owned and operated a Ford truck to the time this suit was filed which was estimated to be worth from $275.00 to $300.00; at the time this suit was brought the truck was under seizure by the Booth Motor Company under chattel mortgage; it was shown that a balance of $69.00 was due on this truck. It was shown the plaintiff owned a trailer estimated to be worth, say, $150.00; that he owned six head of hogs estimated from seven to fifteen dollars; owned a wagon estimated to be worth fifteen dollars; chains, etc., and other equipment estimated around thirty dollars. It was testified to by plaintiff that there was no market for these things around Dry Prong where he lived, and that he didn't have any money to pay the costs of court and was unable to pay the costs as they accrued or to make bond for same.
"It was shown that plaintiff had a family consisting of wife and ten children, one boy, *134 nineteen years old, who helped him in his work. It was shown that for several years prior to this suit the plaintiff had been engaged in logging operations, running a truck and hauling piling and one thing and another, and his gross receipts were from twelve to fifteen and twenty dollars a day as testified to by him. His expense for gas and oil he thinks was three dollars per day. He states that he had to bunch his logs with a team and that expense was not fixed definitely, nor was the expense of the upkeep of the truck definitely fixed in his testimony. It was not shown that he owned his home or other real estate or other property. There was no testimony before the court to show that he had made any effort to secure the money to pay the costs, or to make bond to secure them.
"The above constitutes the statement of facts as the court recalls the testimony.
We find no error in the judgment appealed from by plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.