
    Chevaillier v. Denson.
    In ease of a conflict of testimony the judgment of the District Court, overruling a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, will not bo reversed. (Note 85.)
    Note 85. — Russell v. Mason, ante, 22(3.
    Appeal from Nacogdoches. This was an action by the appellee against the appellant to recover the freight for the carriage of a quantity of cotton. The defendant recovered for damages occasioned by injury done to the cotton by exposure during the voyage. Tiie plaintiff proved his demand. Tiie evidence in support of the defense was conflicting; the witnesses differed in their statements as to the condition of the cotton when delivered to the consignees at the termination of the voyage; there was testimony that it was delivered in a damaged condition; and oilier testimony conducing to prove that the damage was sustained in consequence of the cotton being suffered by tho consignees to remain for some time during a rainy season exposed on tiie ground after its delivery at New Orleans. There was a verdict and judgment for tiie plaintiff; a motion for a new trial overruled.
    
      J. M. Ardrey. for appellant.
    
      T. J. Jennings, for appellee.
   Wheeler, J.

The only ground for error relied on is the refusal of the court to grant a new trial.

The question submitted to tiie jury was one of fact. It became their duty to decide in a conflict of testimony. It was their peculiar and exclusive province to decide upon tiio credibility of the witnesses and tiio weight of evidence. In such a case it is well settled that the judgment of the District Court refusing a new trial will not be reversed on the ground that tiie verdict was contrary to the evidence. Tiie judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  