
    Henry Craig v. C. A. Sylvester, Appellant.
    Appeal — review—conflicting evidence.
    
      Appeal from Floyd District Court. — Hon. P. W. Burr, Judge..
    Monday, January 25, 1897.
    This is an action upon three counts: One for work done in placing a wall under defendant’s building, which is averred to be worth one hundred dollars; in another the sum of ten dollars is claimed for work done in raising certain joists in plaintiff’s building; and in another count fifteen dollars is claimed for raising and straightening walls of a building, and five dollars and sixty cents is claimed for stone window sills furnished the defendant. Defendant admits receiving the sills, and says they were to be offset by the use of defendant’s buggy, loaned to plaintiff. He admits the agreement to place the wall' under his building, but says that said building was to be leveled up, and the joists therein raised and straightened, and that the contract price therefore was seventy-five dollars; that he has paid plaintiff the sum of fifty-five dollars on said work. The defendant denies all other allegations in said counts. In a counterclaim the defendant avers that said work was not done as agreed, and not properly done, by reason of which defendant was compelled to, and did hire other persons to complete it, at a cost of forty-three dollars; and judgment is demanded for fifty dollars. In a reply, plaintiff admits the payment on account of the work done, of thirty-seven dollars, and denies all other allegations of the answer. The cause was tried to a jury, and a verdict for seventy-one dollars and eighty-eight cents returned for the plaintiff. Plaintiff remitted all in excess of sixty dollars, and a judgment was entered for that amount, from which defendant appeals.-
    
      Affirmed,
    
    
      Boulton & Brown for appellant.
    No appearance for appellee.
   Kinne, C. J.

~I. It is claimed that the price of the stone sills was paid by the use of defe idant’s sulky. As to this, the evidence was conflicting, and the jury may well have found that these were not the sills which were paid for by the use of the sulky. -' ' - , -

II. The jury found specially that all the work done by plaintiff for the defendant was under one contract, which was for one hundred dollars, and that but thirty-seven dollars was paid thereon. There was evidence sufficient to sustain these findings. The jury also found that it did not cost the defendant anything to complete the work Which plaintiff had agreed to do. From both abstracts presented, it is difficult to determine the real facts as to certain claims of the parties. We discover no reason for interfering with the judgment. The motions will be overruled. — Affirmed.  