
    CHARLES W. HANCK, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VERNON K. STEPHENSON, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.
    verdict on conflicting evidence.
    
      One of the reasons for the vulefhat the court will not disturb.
    
    Though the court may draw a different conclusion from the evidence submitted upon the printed papers than what the jury did, yet it must be considered that the latter had the advantage of seeing the manner and a/ppea/rance of the witnesses as well as of hearing their statement?, and that is a circumstance to which the law attaches importance.
    
      Before Curtis and Sedgwick, JJ.
    
      Heard June, 1875;
    
      Decided August 3, 1875.
    
      James A. Hudson, for appellant.
    
      William C. Traphagen, for respondent.
    Appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict, and from an order denying a motion to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, made on the minutes.
    The only question involved was whether the verdict should be set aside on the evidence.
   Curtis, J.,

wrote for affirmance, laying down above proposition.

Sedgwick, J., concurred.  