(Filed 10 November, 1965.)
Appeal by defendant from Nimocks, E.J., January 1965 Session of MooRE.
Civil action in which plaintiff seeks to recover $80 from the defendant for work done and performed for defendant under an alleged verbal contract and an additional amount of $117 for alleged additional work done and performed by plaintiff for defendant at her request, or a total of $197. Defendant by way of counterclaim seeks to recover from plaintiff the sum of $270 for damages allegedly done to her property by plaintiff and for money allegedly expended by defendant to complete the work plaintiff was allegedly supposed to do under the verbal contract. The case was first heard in the court of a justice of the peace and from an adverse judgment defendant appealed to the superior court. In the superior court the parties introduced evidence and the following issues were submitted to the jury and answered as shown:
“1. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant for work performed by plaintiff in behalf of defendant?
“Answer: $197.00.
“2. What amount, if any, is the defendant entitled to recover of the plaintiff for alleged damages to defendant’s property?
“Answer: $10.00.”
From a judgment that plaintiff have and recover from defendant the sum of $187 with interest until paid and the costs of this action, defendant appeals to the Supreme Court.
Barrett & Wilson by W. Clement Barrett for defendant appellant.
Seawell & Seawell & Van Camp by H. F. Seawell, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.
*596Per CuRiam.
The evidence offered by the parties was in sharp conflict. The applicable law is well settled, and not complicated. The jury under a charge by the court free from prejudicial error has answered the issues as set forth above. All defendant’s assignments of error have been carefully examined, and error has not been shown that would warrant disturbing the verdict and judgment below. In the trial we find
No error.