
    Peter Dubois against William Read.
    ^ Action for build-proof 0fhoa“ta¡I riginairptan!ican(i thfteSfmony as whole, the verdiet not set aside.
    This was an action of assumpsit, tried before * Mr. Justice Colcoch, in May Term, 1814.
    The plaintiff claimed of defendant $1025.50, for building a dwelling house, a small summer house, and a fence. Hamsay, the witness, who 7 d had worked on the house, proved that it was 22 feet by 28, two stories high. That it was worth $1000, and that the charge of $23 for the small house was very reasonable. On his cross examination, he said he did not know that the plaintiff found all the materials. He also showed a paper which was an estimate of the price of the building, originally furnished by the plaintiff But the witness said there were many alterations from the first plan, and that the defendant was frequently at the house while it was on hand. He also said that the negro, July, was worth 50 cents per day.
    A discount was filed by defendant, and the counsel agreed to the greater part of it, but differed as to some of the items. Anderson, a witness on behalf of defendant, swore that the house, in his opinion, was not worth more than $690, and he estimated the work at one half. The estimate furnished was then produced, and it comprehended all materials. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for $258.85. It was contended that the verdict ought to be set aside, because the plaintiff, in his estimate furnished, had stated the price at $690, and because the witness could not swear that the plaintiff furnished all the materials.
    Charleston,
    May, 1817.
    Winstanley, for the motion.
    
      J. B. White, contra.
   Colcock, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are not sufficient grounds on which to set aside the verdict, for it was clear that alterations had been made by defendant after he began to build, and there was proof that the house was worth $1000. The defendant himself, by producing the original estimate, proved that the timber was to be furnished by the plaintiff,'and if it had not been done, could have shown that he had furnished some of the materials, and to what amount. It appears that the Jury gave the plaintiff his demand, deducting the discount of the defendant as far as it was proven or admitted, and I think have done justice to the parties. I am against the motion.

The other J udges concurred,

L  