
    Michael Billings, etc., v. Montizriffe.
    New Trial — Conflicting Evidence — Proper Instructions — Mistakes and Injudicious Finding of Jury,
    Where the evidence was strangely conflicting upon a question involving the issue of fact and fairly presented by proper instructions for appellants, none being asked by appellee, the appellate court cannot interpose and set aside the finding of the jury after the court below refused to do so, without overturning a doctrine and departing from a principle thoroughly settled with this court and the courts of other States.
    Same.
    Mistake by juries and injudicious finding, in a few exceptional cases, must be submitted to rather than unsettle, long-established and familiar principles.
    APPEAL EBOM JEEBEBSON CIEOUIT OOUBT, COMMON PLEAS.
    April 25, 1867.
   Opinion oe the Ooubt by

Judge Petebs:

Although this couit might, as original triers, have come to quite a different conclusion from the evidence, from that of the jury, yet the question submitted involved an issue of fact, which was •f airly presented upon instructions given, as asked by appellants, and without any being asked by appellees. Upon the issue thus presented, the evidence was conflicting, indeed, it may be said, strangely so; but the witnesses were before the court and jury, who tried the case originally, and, therefore, plausible and imposing as the argument made by appellants’ counsel may be, we cannot interpose, and set aside the finding of the jury after the court below refused to do so, without overturning a doctrine and departing from a principle thoroughly settled by a long course of adjudications of this and other States. Mistakes by juries, and injudicious findings in a few exceptional cases must be submitted to, rather than unsettle long-established and familiar principles.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.  