
    J. S. Shropshire v. S. H. Doxey.
    Where the proof of the value of services tendered by the plaintiff concurred in fixing an amount not less than two hundred and fifty dollars, and there was no evidence before the jury to Warrant them in finding a lesa amount, a verdict fot $125 is plainly contrary to the evidence, and if Was error to refuse to the plaintiff a new trial.
    Appeal from Fayette. Tided below before the Hon. George W. Smith.
    This was a suit brought by J. S. Shropshire against S. H, Boxey for $500, as the value of his services as an attorney, rendered the defendant in the prosecution of a certain .cause for murder. Four witnesses, attorneys-at-law, proved the services rendered as alleged, and that they were reasonably worth $500. One of the witnesses testified that it was worth to prosecute the case $1000 or $1500. Several of the witnesses testified to the ability and fidelity with which the plaintiff conducted the proseention. At the time of the engagement ef the plaintiff’s services, he was a partner of James B. Hancock, deceased at the institution of this suit; they both attended and rendered services on the trial before the committing court. In the District Court, Hancock having died, the plaintiff rendered his services on the trial.
    The defendant introduced a witness who testified “ that Hancock said to him just after the trial before the justice of the peace, that if he were continued in the case by Doxey, in the District Court, he would charge an amount not remembered by the witness, but thinks it was not over $250, or $300, and that he had not then fixed upon a fee for what had been done.”
    Verdict for plaintiff for $125, and judgment accordingly. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, because the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. Overruled.
    
      B. Shropshire, for the appellant,
    cited Austin v. Talk, 20 T. R., 167; Lucket v. Townsend, 3 Tex. R., 133; Iglehart v. Downs, 19 Tex. R., 243.
    
      F. Tate, for appellee.
   Wheeler, C. J.

The witnesses who testified respecting the "nature of the services, all concurred in their estimate; and there was no evidence before the jury to warrant them in finding for the plaintiff less than two hundred and fifty dollars. And yet they returned a verdict for only one hundred and twenty-five dollars. The verdict appears to have been plainly contrary to the evidence. We are unable to perceive any ground upon which a new trial could be rightly refused, and are of opinion that the refusal of it was error, for which the judgment must be reversed and the cause-remanded.

Reversed and remanded*  