
    Howes v. Hall, appellant.
    
      Evidence—violation of contract— Trial— cha/rge to jury.
    
    In an action upon a note, given in payment of plaintiff’s services as salesman, in 1871, the defense was, that plaintiff had violated his duty while in defendant’s employ by selling goods for another establishment in the same business. Meld, that evidence that the amount of work done in a particular branch of defendant’s business in 1871 was less than that done in either 1869 or 1870, the decrease not being shown to be attributable to plaintiff’s acts, was inadmissible.
    Certain agricultural machines, not kept by defendant, were frequently asked for by defendant’s customers. It was shown that plaintiff had told those inquiring that defendant did not keep the machines, but they could be procured at another establishment." Meld, that the charge of the court at trial that “ if the defendant did not manufacture these machines the plaintiff had the right to turn over the orders to other establishments,” was not erroneous, taken in connection with the evidence, and the assumption that plaintiff acted in good faith.
    Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury.
    
      J. G. Gochrane, for appellant.
    
      H. <& G. H Humphrey, for respondent.
   Talcott, J.

The opinion is chiefly devoted to a review of the evidence. The only points of any importance passed upon are fully given in the head-note.

Judgment affirmed.  