
    No. 10,719
    Orleans
    DUNCAN v. SCHARTZENBURG, Appellant
    (March 14, 1927. Opinion and Decree.)
    
      {Syllabus by the Court)
    
    1. Louisiana Digest — Appeal—Par. 625.
    On question of fact the judgment of the lower court "will be affirmed unless clearly erroneous.
    Appeal from First City Court, Section “A’'. Hon. W. A. Bahns, Judge.
    Action by Julius J. Duncan against W. J. Schartzenburg.
    There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    T. J. Martin, of New Orleans, attorney for plaintiff, appellee.
    McGiehan & Strauch, of New Orleans, attorneys for defendant, appellant.
   JONES, J.

Plaintiff claims as follows:

(1) Alleged work on the service

station at Bruxelles and Gentilly Road __________________________________$200.00

(2) Salary for 3 weeks as manager

of service station at $35.00 per week ............... 105.00

(3) Value of certain articles ille-

gally kept by defendant_______ 27.85

Total____________________________________$332.85

In order to obtain jurisdiction of City Court, claim was reduced to three hundred dollars ($300.00).

Defendant answered, denying all the claims, but averring that he held plaintiff's property subject to his order. He also filed reconventional demands for two hundred, twenty-nine and. 75-100 ($229.75) dollars, which were properly dismissed below and are not urged here.

The judge of the lower court gave judgment for the articles claimed; for one-half of the profits of the service station, amounting to fifty-seven and 47-100 ($57.47) dollars; and for his work on the service station, two hundred dollars ($200.00).

Defendant has appealed suspensively to this court.

As plaintiff’s property has been returned and as the amount allowed for services as manager of the service station is satisfactory to both, the value of plaintiff’s work is the only item before us. ,

In his argument and brief in this court defendant admits owing fifty-six and 40-100 ($56.40) dollars.

We have carefully examined the voluminous evidence on this point and we can not say that the estimate placed thereon by the lower judge is clearly erroneous.

For above reasons the judgment is affirmed.  