
    HAROLD STEELE, A MINOR, BY THOMAS M. STEELE, HIS GUARDIAN AT LITEM v. EVERETT LIVINGSTON.
    
    October 6, 1922.
    No. 22,981.
    Denial of new trial correct.
    Action for services of a minor. Verdict for plaintiff sustained by evidence, and denial of a new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence was proper. [Reporter.]
    Action in the district court for Dodge county by the guardian ad litem of Harold Steele, a minor, to recover $246.15 for services of the minor. The answer alleged that the minor had overdrawn his account for labor to the amount of $460.85 and interposed a counterclaim therefor. The case was tried before Childress, J., who at the close of the testimony denied plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for $146.15. From an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      H. J. Edison, for appellant.
    
      F. G. Sasse, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 189 N. W. 1027.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Action in behalf of an infant by his guardian to recover for labor and services, in which the defense of payment was interposed. Plaintiff had a verdict for $174, and defendant appealed from an order denying his motion for judgment or a new trial.

An examination of the record together with the briefs and arguments of counsel leads to an affirmance. The evidence fully supports the verdict, and the record presents no error of a character to require a new trial. There was no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and the exceptions to the instructions of the trial court present no prejudicial error. If technical error appears in the charge it is of a verbal character and should have been called to the attention of the court at the trial. That course was not pursued. The charge as a whole fairly submitted all the issues to the jury, and the law applicable to the issues was correctly applied.

Affirmed.  