Crisman v. Masters

This was an action by the appellee against the appellant to recover damages, in consequence of the cattle, etc., of the latter having broken into his inclosure and destroyed his crops. Answer; 1. General denial. 2. That the -fields of the plaintiff were not inclosed by a sufficient and lawful fence; wherefore, etc. Eeply, general denial; trial, and verdict for plaintiff for $200 damages; motion for new trial overruled; and judgment on the verdict.

We can not, consistently with the well-established rules of law, reverse this case, on the ground that the verdict is against evidence, as we are…