(Filed 15 April, 1914.)
Held, this controversy involved issues of fact, and there is no error.
Appeal by plaintiff from Peebles, J., at May Term, 1913, of ORANGE.
Civil action tried upon these issues:
1. Is tbe defendant, Charles Nichols, indebted to tbe plaintiff, Ida Latta, and if so, in what amount? Answer: No.
2. Is tbe plaintiff, Ida Latta, indebted to the defendant, Charles U. Nichols, and if so, in what amount? Answer: Yes; $55.29, with interest from 23 January, 1912.
3. Is tbe defendant, Charles U. Nichols, indebted to tbe inter-pleader, Richard Latta, and if so, in what amount ? Answer: $20.
From judgment rendered, tbe plaintiff appealed.
*229 G. D. Turner for plaintiff.
'S. M. Gottis for defendant.
Per Cueiam.
We bare examined, and considered tbe eight assignments of error set out in tbis record, and pressed upon our attention in tbe brief and argument of tbe learned counsel for tbe plaintiffs. Tbe controversy appears to be one largely of fact, and we think is determined witb substantial justice by tbe verdict of tbe jury.
No error.