
    David H. Mitchell v. Peter Tolley.
    
      Error from Leavenworth County.
    
    An order, of the court below, refusing to grant a new trial, on a verdict where the evidence is conflicting and irreconcilable, will not be disturbed.
    
    A sufficient elucidation of the facts of the case, for presenting the question decided, will be found in the subjoined opinion.
    
      Houseley c6 Reese, for plaintiff in error.
    No counsel for defendant in error.
    
      
       Boyer v. Cockrill, 3 Kas., 282.
    
   By the Court,

King-man, C. J.

There is no question of law raised in this case, save the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial.

It was an action on an account. The testimony, as shown in the record, was conflicting and irreconcilable. The plaintiff proved his claim in full, and that it was not paid.

The defendant proved that it was paid in full. The jury were the proper- tribunal to weigh the evidence, and upon principles of law so well established, and so familiar, as to need no elucidation from. us. Tire court below very properly refused to disturb tbe result of tbeir inquiry.

Judgment affirmed.

All tbe justices concurring.  