
    PEYTAVIN vs. WINTER.
    APPEAL PROM THE SECOND DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OP THE FOURTH PRESIDING.
    The appellant must take care to bring up the case in such a manner, as to enable the Supreme Court to review the judgement complained of.
    The jury are the proper judges of the amount of damages, but when it appears from the evidence, that a party is really aggrieved, he will be afforded the opportunity of a second trial.
    The appellant must take care to bring up the case in such a manner as to enable the Supreme Court to review the judgement complained of.
    The jury are the proper judges of the amount of damages, but when it appears from the evidence that a party is really aggrieved, he will be afforded the opportunity of a second trial.
    
      Barton, for appellant. Roselius, for appellee.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the court delivered by

Martin, J.

This is an action of trespass on the plaintiff’s land. The defendant claimed title in the locus in quo. There was a verdict and judgement against him with one thousand dollars damages; and he appealed.

His counsel has contended that the record, with the proof, place the case in so much confusion, that he believes it is not in a situation to receive the final action of this court. Parties who come to us for relief, must take care to bring their cases before us in such a manner, as to enable us to review the judgement complained of.

It has appeared to us, however, that the evidence does not authorize the amount of damages found. Of this the jury are proper judges; but it is our duty, when we think the party is really aggrieved, to afford him the opportunity of a second trial. This appears to us to be the case now.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgement of the District Court be- annulled, avoided, and reversed, the verdict set aside, and the case remanded for a new trial. The appellee paying costs in this court.  