
    GRANNEAU vs. LANGLOIS.
    Eastern Dis.
    January, 1833.
    APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP THE POURTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OP THE DISTRICT PRESIDING.
    This court will not remand a cause because the testimony and affairs investigated are obscure, if there is no allegation that new evidence may be adduced.
    Damages will not be given, unless itclearlyappear that the appeal is frivolous.
    The plaintiff sued on a promissory note. The defendant admitted his signature, hut pleaded error, want of consideration, and fraud.
    On the trial, the defendant attempted to prove various errors of fact in their business transactions previous to the timé the note in question was given. He likewise attempted to.prove a partnership, and a joint interest with plaintiff m a certain schooner- The court decided that he had failed in his defence, and rendered judgment accordingly.
    This court win cause because tho testimony and af-investigated are obscure, if ¿™“¿_raaybeaá'
    After an unsuccessful effort to obtain a new trial, the defendant appealed.
    Burk, for appellants.
    1. The judgment of the court below must be affirmed with ten per centum damages.
    2. This suit is brought on a plain note of hand, and the defendant entirely failed to make out his defence.
    3. The note appears to have been given on a settlement of accounts between the parties, and for a balance due; there is no proof showing want of consideration and error; it was the duty of the defendant to explain, satisfactorily, that settlement to the court.
    Labauve, for appellees.
   •Maxitin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant, sued on his promissory note, pleaded it was given for the balance . which he was, through error and by the fraud of the plaintiff, induced to recognize as due on a settlement of accounts. There was judgment for the latter, and the former appealed, after a vain attempt for a new trial, on the ground of the judgment being manifestly contrary to the evidence.

The case turns entirely on a question of fact. The inferior judge has expressed his opinion that there is much obscurity in the affair; that it lay with the defendant to explain it, and he did not do so satisfactorily. In this view of the case, we concur.

The defendant has now presented the obscurity of the affair, complained of by our learned brother, as a reason for our x remanding the case for another trial. There is no ° “ ° tion that any new evidence may be adduced, and as the arguments of the counsel have, failed in dispelling the obscurity jn the affair, there is little hope that any new argument " J. J o might render the counsel’s efforts more successful; especially as he might have the benefit of it in this court.

beT^en unió®?it thaftheappeaiis frivolous.

The appellee has prayed for damages as on a frivolous case. The case may be said to be a doubtful one, and we may believe the defendant believed he might be benefited by an appeal.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.  