
    Martin v. Hammond et al.
    
    Mutual Accounts: instructions : evidence to support verdict.
    
      Appeal from Fremont District Court. — Hon. Geo. Carson, Judge.
    Filed, February 7, 1889.
    The plaintiff by her petition demanded judgment against tho defendants for seven hundred and ninety-live dollars, being a balance which she claimed to be due to her as money collected by defendants for her and which they refused to pay over.
    The defendants answered in denial and set up an account against the plaintiff for legal services and other items of charge, and demanded judgment against the plaintiff for a balance alleged to be due them.
    There was a trial by jury. A verdict was returned for plaintiff for two hundred and thirty-three dollars, upon which a judgment was rendered. Defendants appeal.
    
      J. M. Hammond and William Eaton, for appellants.
    
      Qeo. E. Draper and James McCabe, for appellee.
   Rothrock, J.

I. Certain instructions which the defendants requested the court to give to the jury were refused. Complaint is made of this action of the court. We do not discover any error in this regard. The case was purely one of fact. The only questions to be determined by the jury were the mutual accounts of the parties. The instructions given by the court fairly placed before the jury all the questions in the case.

II. It is claimed that the verdict is without support in the evidence. A careful examination o'f all the evidence has led us to the conclusion that we cannot disturb the judgment on this ground. The testimony of George Albee on behalf of the plaintiff, in connection with Exhibit “G” to be found on page 37 of the abstract, in our opinion raises a fair conflict with the evidence introduced by the defendants.

Affirmed.  