
    (105 So. 430)
    SPATES v. CAMPBELL.
    (8 Div. 205.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Aug. 11, 1925.)
    1. Appeal and error &wkey;>907(4) — On failure to incorporate in bill of exceptions evidence of value of article claimed in detinue, it is presumed on appeal that there was evidence supporting court’s judgment.
    In detinue for mule,.where, on appeal, bill of exceptions stated that "‘this was all the testimony in substance,” but did not set out evidence as to value, it will be presumed that there was other evidence supporting judgment of court as to value.
    2. Appeal and error &wkey;>IOII(l) — Finding, based on conflicting evidence, affirmed.
    Finding and judgment of trial court in detinue, based on directly conflicting evidence, will be affirmed on appeal.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County ; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
    Detinue by C. P. Campbell against J. W. Spates. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. G. Bailey, of Boaz, for appellant.
    J. W. Brown, of Boaz, for appellee.
   BRICKEN, P. J.

Appellee, Campbell, brought an action of detinue against appellant Spates, for the recovery of one brown mare mule, 8 years old.

The case was tried by the court without a jury. Errors are assigned all relating, however, to the same proposition, “that the court erred in its finding and judgment in favor of the plaintiff.”

The bill of exceptions states that “this was all the testimony in substance,” however, there is no evidence whatever incorporated in the bill of exceptions as to the value of the mule involved. We must presume that there was other evidence, otherwise the court could not have arrived at the value of the mule.

The evidence was in direct conflict, and in.this state of the record we cannot disturb the finding and judgment of the trial court. The judgment will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.  