
    Hudspeth & Wright v. Mears.
    1. -The plaintiff having testified that the amounts contained in a certain paper were correct, and the paper then having been admitted in evidence by the court without having been submitted to defendant’s counsel for inspection, and so far as appears no objection to its admission having been made at the time, it was not error, after the jury had retired to deliberate, to send the paper to them over objection then made that it had not been tendered to the opposite counsel for inspection.
    2. There was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.
    July 10, 1893.
    Complaint on account. Before Judge Janes. Polk superior count. February term, 1892.
    The suit was for a balance due for hauling logs and lumber. After verdict for the plaintiff, defendants’ motion for a new trial was overruled. The only special ground of the motion was that shown by the first headnote.
    I. F. Thompson and C. E. Carpenter, for plaintiffs in error. No appearance contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed.  