The evidence produced by the plaintiff to prove the value of the service performed by him for the defendant in the transportation of boards from Blandford to Suffield was properly admitted. It had a direct tendency to support the allegations of indebtedness set forth in the declaration. Hav
The evidence offered by the defendant to show what was the price of lumber or boards estimated by admeasurement, in Blandford and Suffield respectively, was immaterial, and therefore rightly rejected. It was of no consequence whether it was judicious to convey the property from one market or section of the country to another, or whether, considering the necessary cost of its transportation, it would have been unprofitable to have caused such a removal of the property. Whether he would make any such engagement or not was for the defendant to determine for himself; but if he employed another person to do the work necessary and unavoidable in its transportation, he was bound to pay him either a stipulated sum agreed upon, or, in the absence of any express contract, a reasonable compensation for the service performed. Exceptions overruled.
