
    Christopher Augat vs. Johanna Tetmeyer.
    Third Judicial District, Bridgeport,
    October Term, 1919.
    Wheeler, Beach, Gager, Case and Curtis, Js.
    The maxim de minimis non curat lex is applicable to the alleged erroneous allowance of an item of interest of $4 or thereabouts in a judgment for $152, and an appeal to'this court solely upon such ground is not justified.
    Argued November 5th
    decided December 22d, 1919.
    Action by the payee against the maker of a promissory note for $150, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, Booth, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for the amount of the note with interest, less the sum of $11.50 allowed the defendant upon her counterclaim, from which she appealed.
    
      No error.
    
    
      Albert McC. Mathewson, for the appellant (defendant).
    
      
      Joseph G. Shapiro and Charles H. Shapiro, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Per Curiam.

Certain items of the defendant’s counterclaim were allowed in reduction of the amount claimed by the plaintiff; others were disallowed. The finding conclusively settled every matter in dispute, save an item of interest amounting to something over $4, which it is claimed the court erroneously allowed. This did not justify an appeal, and our disposition of the case is manifestly controlled by Neville v. Frary, 88 Conn. 50, 89 Atl. 882, and the earlier cases there referred to.

There is no error.  