
    Paul J. Ziglatzki vs. Josie A. Cummings.
    First Judicial District, Hartford,
    March Term, 1925.
    Wheeler, C. J., Beach, Curtis, Keeler and Maltbie, Js.
    The fact that an appellant attacks a finding by the method provided in § 5832 of tho General Statutes, does not empower this court to construct a new finding from an independent examination of the evidence; tho corrections which it may make are still confined to those prescribed in § 11, p. 309 of the Practice Book.
    It is not essential that statements of fact in a finding should always be supported by direct evidence. It is enough if the circumstances fairly warrant the inference or conclusion stated.
    Argued March 6th —
    decided June 1st, 1925.
    Action to recover damages for an alleged breach by the defendant of a contract to pay for painting supplies, brought to the City Court of Hartford and tried to the court, Ross, judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff.
    
      No error.
    
    
      George H. Cohen, with whom, on the brief, was Naaman Cohen, for the appellant (plaintiff).
    
      John A. Danaher, for the appellee (defendant).
   Per Curiam.

Under the facts found, it could not seriously be claimed that judgment was not properly rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff, however, seeks changes in the finding, and claims that judgment for him would follow if the corrections were made.

The plaintiff seeks the corrections under the method provided in General Statutes, § 5832, and a statement of all the evidence presented and rulings made has been made a part of the record. The plaintiff has properly set forth the corrections sought in his reasons of appeal. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Cambell, 97 Conn. 251, 116 Atl. 186. This method of procedure under General Statutes, § 5832, does not authorize us to correct the finding by an independent examination of the evidence and our making of a new finding of facts therefrom. Hoadley v. Savings Bank of Danbury, 71 Conn. 599, 42 Atl. 667. Such corrections as the court has power to make are still confined to those provided for by the rules of court found in the Practice Book, p. 309, § 11.

It is to be borne in mind that “it is not essential that statements of fact in a finding should always be supported by direct evidence. It is enough if the circumstances fairly warrant the inference or conclusion stated.” McCarthy v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 79 Conn. 73, 74, 63 Atl. 725.

Examining the evidence in this case in the light of these considerations, none of the corrections sought in the reasons of appeal should be granted.

There is no error.  