
    Argued March 28,
    affirmed April 2,
    rehearing denied June 4, 1929.
    ERNST KRONER v. WM. ISENSEE.
    (275 Pac. 1119.)
    For appellant there was a brief over the names of M-r. Harry G. Hoy and Mr. Edward 0. Doxey, with an oral argument by Mr. Hoy.
    
    For respondent there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. Henry Hartje.
    
   PER CURIAM’.

The court, having heard the argument and discussed the reasons advanced by appellant for reversing this case, are of the opinion that none of the questions discussed and urged by appellant, who is defendant, is meritorious. The case presents no new principle of law. It was fairly tried below and the court’s instructions were fair to defendant. For these reasons the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. ’ Affirmed.  