564 .rEDEBAIi> BEPOBTBB. �table ïnarked "P," and 302 of the 995 logs wliose contents are given in the table are bo marked. The bill of lading calls for 693 pieces of timber, and there are 693 pieces of lumber, besides those marked "P," whose contents are given in this table. This table covers 47 pages, each of which is separately footed up. After the table cornes the following entry on a separate page : �EECAPITUtATION. �997 pieces, containing - - - 63,507 10-12 �Less thin boards and heart plank, etc., left �on dock, - , . . . 2,811 11-12 ���997 pieces, . ■ - - - 60,695 11-12 �The -witness testifled that the 2,811 11-12 cubiofeet of thin �pieces, etc., was ascertained byhim from the actual measure- �ment of pieces that came off of the sawn logs, which pieces �were net suitable for planks. An examination of the detaiîëd statement or ta,ble contained �in the bock gives the following resuit : �The 693 logs not marked "P" contained - 45,160 7-12 �The 302 logs marked "P" contained - - 18,346 6-12 ���Total, - 63,507 1-12 �This resuit differs from the total giten in the "recapitula- tion" only by nine-twelfths of a cubie foot — a difference, doubt- less, owing to a mistake in the "recapitulation" in adding up the footings of the pages. It is evident from this statement, as well as from the witness' own testimony, that his memory was somewhat at fault in respect to the matter. The total contents of the 302 logs sawn into planks was 18,34:6 6-12, instead of 15,618 8-12, as stated by him. The amount en- tered on defendants' books as the amount of the 693 unsawn logs, which amount the defendants also f urnished to the libel- lants afterwards as the amount of freight measurement on which to compute the freight, was 45,137 3-12 instead of 45,160 7-12, which is the true resuit of the inspeetor's book. 1 have not been able to discover how this slight difference occurred. The defendants appear to have taken the figures ����
