
    MANY vs. PARMLY.
    Eastern Dist.
    
      February, 1837.
    
      APPEAL PROM THE PARISH COURT, POR THE PARISH AND CITY OP NEW-ORLEANS.
    Where the testimony is contradictory, on mere questions of fact, the verdict of the jury, when it is not apparently erroneous, will not be disturbed.
    This is an action against the defendant, for the sum of four hundred and thirty-one dollars, which is claimed as a balance on a written contract for carpenter’s work, and for extra work done on a house. The plaintiff alleges, that this sum is actually due to him, and that the defendant refuses to pay him, for which he prays judgment, with the builder’s privilege on the house, &c.
    The defendant admitted his written contract with the plaintiff, but averred, that the work which the latter contracted to do, was performed so unskilfully that he has suffered loss, having already paid the plaintiff a large sum, much more than the work done was worth. He denies that there was any extra work done. He claims five hundred dollars damages, in reconvention, and prays that the plaintiff’s demand be rejected.
    Upon this issue the cause was submitted to a jury, with the testimony introduced on both sides. A verdict was re-returned, allowing the plaintiff four hundred and twenty-one dollars, and from judgment rendered thereon the defendant appealed.
    
      Roselius, for the plaintiff.
    
      Chinn, for the defendant.
   Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant resisted the plaintiff’s claim for work and labor done on his house, on an allegation of its having been so unskilfully executed that it is of no value. Tbe plaintiff jia(j a verdict and judgment, and the defendant appealed.

Wherethetes-timony is eon-mere quéstíous dícfof’thejury" when it is not apparently erroneous, will not be disturbed.

The case appears to us to turn on a single question of fact, to wit: whether the matter pleaded in defence has been established. No question of law is presented for our consideration.

The testimony is somewhat contradictory. The jury, however, have come to the conclusion, that the defendant t>as failed to establish his defence. On a close examination 0f the testimony, it does not appear to us that the jury erred. 1 L °

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the Parish Court be affirmed, with costs.  