
    PETERS & MILLARD vs. DORSEY ET AL.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
    The verdict of a jury in a case, involving ■ altogether matters of fact, will not be disturbed, although the testimony in the record seems to preponderate in favor of the other party, and is somewhat contradictory, when the judge and jury who heard the witnesses, were satisfied; and when the verdict does not appear so palpably erroneous as to require ^interference.
    The plaintiffs sue-Greenbury Dorsey and Charles Creighton, for the sum of two hundred and seventy-five dollars, the amount of one month’s rent due on a lease of a certain store and warehouses.
    The defendants aver they leased the houses for a year, and that the plaintiffs failed to keep them in repair ; that they soon became so leaky as rendered them wholly unfit for use, and injured their goods, &c. They aver they notified the plaintiffs of these defects, who always refused to repair them; that they have sustained “"damage by injury to goods, loss of storage, &c., in the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars, for which they claim a judgment. They pray for the annulment of the lease and a discharge from all liability under it.
    
      The Ycrdict of a jury, in a case ^hOTmattosof Í:íct> '"'ill not be disturbed, although the testi“°’jy r®0 j^^'of^he o” ther party, and tradlctoTy/wto" the judge and jury who heard the witnesses, were where the verpéaVso^aipabiy erroneous as to require interference.
    Evidence was taken and introduced relative to the issue between the parties touching the condition of the premises, upon which, under the pleadings, the cause was submitted to a jury. A verdict and judgment thereon was rendered for the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed.
    
      Carleton and Lockett, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Smith, contra.
    
   Mathews, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit is brought to recover one month’s rent for the use of a certain house or store, leased to the defendants at the rate of two hundred and seventy-five dollars per mouth. They oppose payment and pray a rescission of the contract of lease, (which is for a year) on the grounds that the house or store leaks so badly, as to be unfit for the purposes for which it was leased, &c. The cause was tried by a jury in * v v the court below, who rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, and judgment being thereon rendered, the defendants appealed.

, , , , The correctness of this verdict and judgment, depends altogether on matters of fact, of which a jury are considered as capable of judging as a court. It is true, the testimony as shown on the record, appears to us -to preponderate in favor of the defendants; but, it seemed different to the judge and jury who saw and heard the witness. A. motion for a J J 4 new trial was overruled by the judge a quo, which shows that he was satisfied with the conclusions of the jury on the evidence. The facts disclosed are somewhat contradictory, The decision of the jury on them, does not, however, appear Tii , , ’ ,, ’ . to us so palpably contrary to truth, as to require our interference.

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