
    Johnson vs. Pendleton et al.
    
    Where there is conflicting evidence on the trial of a cause and no rule of law appears to have been violated, a judgment will not be reversed on the supposition that the jury may have come to a wrong conclusion as to a matter of fact.
    Appeal from the district court of Santa Clara county. The only material facts will be found in the opinion of the court.
    
      Frederick H. Sanford, for plaintiff.
    
      
      8. Heydenfeldt^ for defendant.
   By the Court,

Bennett, J.

The plaintiff’s action is for services as clerk in a store. The defendants deny that they are indebted to the plaintiff, but claim that he is indebted to them. This is the substance of the pleadings. The cause was tried before a jury, and judgment rendered, upon their verdict, for $479,47 in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appeal. At the trial the testimony was conflicting; no point of law was ruled against the defendants ; and they seem to have appealed solely upon the ground that the jury came to an incorrect conclusion upon a matter of fact. We have already held, in several cases, that we ought not to disturb the verdict of a jury upon a question of fact, where the evidence is conflicting, and where no rule of law appears to have been violated. These decisions control this case.

Judgment affirmed with costs.  