
    St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Elisha Bowles.
    [64 South. 968.]
    Appeal and Error. Findings. Gonclusiveness.
    
    The supreme court will not set aside the verdict of a jury, finding the facts of a case, merely because it is of the opinion that the verdict was contrary to what that court 'deemed the weight of evidence.
    Appeal from the circuit court of Marshall county.
    Hon. H. E. Mahon, Judge.
    Suit by Elisha Bowles, by next friend, against the St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Appellee (plaintiff below), a negro boy, by his father and next friend, brought an action against the appellant for damages for injuries received by him while in appellant’s employ. The declaration alleges that plaintiff was a minor seventeen or eighteen years old at the time of the injury and was engaged in unloading cross-ties from a box car on a side track of appellant railroad; that in removing ties from the end of the car, an unfilled space was left in the middle of the car, and that while plaintiff was standing in the car unloading ties under the direction of appellant’s foreman, the car was struck violently by moving cars of appellant making a flying switch, and the ■cross-ties were thrown together in the space where plaintiff was at work, and broke his leg in two places, injured his back, knocked out several teeth, and otherwise injured him, rendering him unconscious from the injuries. He was taken to a hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, about thirty or forty miles distant, and remained there for treatment for some time, suffering greatly, and being-given frequent doses of morphine and other narcotic ■drugs. The defense relied upon is that plaintiff was more than twenty-one years of age, had given a written release to the claim agent of appellant in consideration of two hundred seventy-five dollars, as full settlement of his claim against the railroad. The defendant introduced testimony to show that plaintiff while in the hospital had made affidavit that he was twenty-one years of ■age, and that he was represented at the settlement by a negro lawyer of Memphis, and that a cousin of his was also present when the settlement was made. Plaintiff denies any knowledge of making the affidavit, or of making the settlement, and denies that he ever employed any attorney to act for him, and if such a transaction occurred, he was out of his head at the time and knew nothing of it. There was a'conflict in the testimony, and the case went to a jury under instructions of the court, and the jury returned a verdict for two thousand dollars, less the sum of two hundred seventy-five dollars previously paid. The railroad company appeals.
    
      Smith é Totten, attorneys for appellant.
    
      W. A. McDonald and J. W. Buchanan, attorneys for appellee.-
   Coon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

"We are asked to reverse this case because the verdict of the jury is contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. A careful review of the evidence-fails to convince us that the weight of credible evidence rests with, appellant, and, besides, we do not believe it to be the province of this court to set aside the verdict of' a jury, finding the facts of the case, merely because we should be of opinion that the verdict was contrary to what we deemed the weight of evidence. In the instant case it is not difficult to find ample reasons for the jury’s refusal to believe the testimony offered on behalf of appellant.

Affirmed.  