I should certainly far sooner incline to believe that Coles' account of the transaction of this preliminary engagement was the correct one —viz., that he went to Skene, that he took the plaintiff into his ser vice through Skene, and that he arranged to pay her wages in the ordinary way. If the plaintiff's evidence is untrue in any material par ticular, as I am satisfied it was untrue as to the circumstances of the preliminary engagement, then the proper inference is—unless there is strong grouud for coming to a contrary conclusion—that the whole of her evidence is untrue. Now she states, as I have said, that she was not to be paid at all for this preliminary period—a period which began some time in August and ended some time in October, but that in view of Coles' going to Melbourne it was arranged that she should manage the business for a period ;of 12 months. In consequence of that Coles went to the bank, opened an account, and gave the teller instructions. That was on the 16th of October. At this period she admits nothing was said about the wages she was to get, or what her arrangement was to be in tak ing charge. She, however, says it was settled that she was to take charge for a period of 12 months. That in itself seems to me to be an extraordinary state of things. Then she says that on the 21st—the clay before Crjles went away—it was settled that she was to have £3 per week, and that this agreement was drawn up, or rather this document was signed by Coles. According to her, Coles never asked her to sign a duplicate of it. The alleged document em bodies this period of 12 mouths, and it also fixes £3 per week as the remuneration—a sum which seems to me to be excessive, and con siderably more than an efficient person could have been obtained for. Then Coles goes away, and in her letters to him there are evident in dications that there has been, no agreement for 12 months as she alleges. 