
    Nicoll against Dunlap.
    ' It appeared from the return to the certiorari in this cause, that the note on which the suit was brought in court below, was given for a gaming bet relative to a horse-race. The testimony on both sides went to establish this fact, but the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
    If on a return to a certiorari, it clearly appear, from the evidence on both sides, that the plaintiff’s demand was illegal, and that he had no right to recover, the court will set aside the judgment, though the jury found a verdict for plaintiff
    
      Richardson, for the plaintiff in error,
    contended that as it appeared from the evidence on both sides, that the consideration of the note was illegal and void, the judgment below was erroneous, and ought to be reversed.
    
      Henry, contra.
    This was a question of fact, which the jury were to decide. If they have found a verdict contrary to the testimony, it is evident that they did not believe the witnesses, of whose credit they are the proper judges. The court will not reverse the judgment, unless there be errors in law; nor will they set aside a judgment of a justice’s court, because the verdict may have been against evidence.
   Per Curiam.

The law requires the justice to return the facts, and we consider ourselves as having a more extensive jurisdiction relative to the proceedings in these courts. It has been repeatedly decided, that where there was no evidence in favour of the demand, the judgment must be reversed. Where a fact elearly appears from the evidence on both sides, and there is no question as to the credibility of witnesses, a verdict of a jury will not conclude this court. In the present case, there was no question as to the consideration of the note; its illegality was proved by the witnesses produced by both parties, and their credit was unimpeached. The judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  