apparently covered tbe period from August, 1930, to August, 1931.
On tbe trial all of tbe statement was gone into very thoroughly by both appellant and appellee. Both McWilliams and Scott testified as to it, as also did tbe auditor who made one of tbe reports. Tbe auditor also on examination by appellant identified tbe books used to make up tbe various statements and testified that "each and every item listed there is on those books there," and "correctly taken off."
Tbe financial statement bad been so thoroughly gone over, by both parties, and tbe auditor with tbe books from which tbe several reports were made, being in court and compared by tbe auditor, we think it was not error to admit tbe statement, it being and containing but transcribed items testified to as shown by tbe books themselves.
Tbe record shows that from and afterj the statement of October 9, 1931, appellant commenced to call upon appellee to make payments on tbe purchase price of tbe stock, and which was done at times during several weeks next thereafter.
By several propositions appellant submits that appellee having pleaded and tbe evidence having shown that tbe agreement as to tbe sale and purchase of tbe stock was definitely made in August, 1931, and tbe petition pleaded and tbe evidence showed that tbe representation made as to tbe actual value of tbe assets of tbe corporation were made prior to such agreement, it was error to submit, over objection, tbe first special issuei as to the representation of appellant that tbe actual value of tbe assets was $70,009; that likewise it was error to submit tbe fifth special issue, referring to tbe representation made as to net surplus of ..$30,000: Dikewise it was error to submit tbe ninth special issue inquiring whether appellant bad made the representation of an earned net profit of $13,-000 between tbe dates stated.
The several assigned errors are based on tbe insufficiency of tbe pleading to justify tbe submission of tbe issues indicated.
We have heretofore discussed tbe sufficiency of the pleading and stated it at length in considering tbe general and special exceptions, and in considering these propositions we refer to tbe statement of tbe petition there made. Tbe propositions are overruled.
No question is made as to tbe sufficiency of tbe evidence to sustain tbe several findings of tbe jury and tbe judgment of tbe court.
The case is. affirmed.