
    GARRETT vs. KNOX’S ADMINISTRATOR.
    Western Dist.
    
      Oct. 1838.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF rR.OJBA.TES FOR THE PARISH OF OUACHITA'*
    Where the evidence is contradictory, and the case turns on facts, if the judgment of the judge a quo, who heard the witnesses and had the best opportunity of testing their verity, is not manifestly erroneous, it will be affirmed.
    
      Where the fradiotory,S ''and the case turns on facts, uthejudgment of the lieafd ^tíuf witnesses and had íJjni^of tesUng their verity, is not manifestly erroneous, it will beaffirraed<
    
      This was an action on a merchant’s account, against the administrator ofWm. O. Knox’s estate, to recover the sum of three hundred and seventy-eight dollars apd seventy-six cents, according to an account annexed.
    The defendant pleaded a general denial, and prescription of a year ; and further set up a demand in compensation and reconvention for a crop of cotton, which the plaintiff had-sold for the deceased Mr. Knox, in his life time.
    Upon these allegations and averments there were several' witnesses examined. The plaintiff called a witness who had been his clerk and proved his account. There was then testimony taken to discredit the plaintiff’s principal witness but in the opinion of the probate judge, who heard all the witnesses face to face-, the defendant entirely failed to make good bis averments, or disprove the evidence on the other side. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for three hundred and twelve dollars. The-defendant appealed.
    
      Garrett, for the plaintiff.
    
      J\I‘Guire, contra.
    
   Carleton, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit is brought against the administrator of the succession of William O. Knox, deceased, for the amount of certain articles furnished, and moneys loaned, as set forth in the account annexed to the petition.

The defendant denies generally; pleads the prescription of one year, and compensation. There- was judgment for the-plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

The controversy turns entirely upon the plea in compensation. Upon this point many witnesses were examined in the court below, and their testimony commented upon by the counsel on both sides at great length, before this court.

The evidence is contradictory, and' not easily reconciled nevertheless, after the most full and careful examination we 7 have been able to bestow upon it, we cannot perceive that the probate judge has come to an erroneous conclusion.

Having heard the witnesses in the first instance, he had the best opportunity of ascertaining the verity of their declarations. We have frequently said, that in questions of fact, this court would not disturb the judgment of the court below, unless manifestly erroneous; and we see no reason for departing from this rule in the case now under consideration.

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