
    MANICE vs. LONG.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OP THE SIXTH DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, THE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT PRESIDING.
    Judgment affirmed, with the maximum of damages.
    This is an action against O’Neal as maker, and De Russy, William Long and John Tucker, as endorsers of a promissory note. O’Neal and De Russy, confessed judgment in solido ; and there was judgment by default, made final against Long and Tucker. Long appealed.
    The protest and notices to the endorsers, are all the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The notice to Long was served, by being “left with his clerk at his counting-room.”
    The defendant waived the formalities of citation and answer, and made no defence.
    This case was submitted without any brief, or argument.
   Martin J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant is appellant from a judgment against him, as one of several endorsers of a promissory note. He waived citation and answer, and judgment was taken against him and the other defendants by default, and made final on the production of the note and protest. The notice was “left with the clerk of the appellant, at his counting-room.” There was no serious defence, but the present defendant alone appealed, and has shown no error in the judgment.

The appellee has prayed for damages, and we think he is entitled to them.

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