
    Joseph P. Neville vs. John Frary.
    First Judicial District, Hartford,
    January Term, 1914.
    Prentice, C. J., Thayer, Roraback, Wheeler and Beach, Js.
    This court will not grant a new trial nor intervene to correct a judgment for nearly $1,000, merely because of the alleged erroneous allowance of an item of $6. Under such circumstances the familiar maxim of De minimis non curat lex is applicable.
    Submitted on briefs January 7th
    decided March 5th, 1914.
    Action to recover the contract price for furnishing and installing twenty-four furnaces in the defendant’s tenement houses, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in Hartford County, Case, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $978, and appeal by the defendant.
    
      No error.
    
    
      Stewart N. Dunning, for the appellant (defendant).
    
      Augustine Lonergan and David A. Wilson, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Per Curiam.

The only error complained of arises out of the inclusion of an item of $6 in a judgment for nearly $1,000. If it were so that this item was erroneously allowed, that fact would not warrant either the setting aside of the judgment, or, if it so be that a new trial could be avoided by a direction for the correction in judgment, such intervention by this court. The item is too insignificant to claim our attention, and we give it no other attention than to note its insignificance. De minimis non curat lex is a familiar maxim, frequently applied by us, expressive óf a principle not to be ignored by parties in the taking of appeals, or by us upon the appeal, if ignored by them. Old Saybrook v. Milford, 76 Conn. 152, 157, 56 Atl. 496; Chany v. Hotchkiss, 79 Conn. 104, 108, 63 Atl. 947; Mathews v. Livingston, 86 Conn. 263, 272, 85 Atl. 529.

There is no error.  