Case Name: Emile Dreyfus v. Jeremiah Lincoln
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1881
Citations: 1 McGl. 313
Docket Number: No. 123
Parties: Emile Dreyfus v. Jeremiah Lincoln.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the various Courts of Appeal of the state of Louisiana (McGloin)
Volume: 1
Pages: 313–315

Head Matter:
No. 123.
Emile Dreyfus v. Jeremiah Lincoln.
1. This Court will not disturb tlie verdict and judgment of a lower court, unless they be clearly erroneous.
•2. When a verdict has heen arrived at, hy means other than conviction of judgment, on the part of the jury, this if proven, might furnish just cause for remanding.
'3. Circumstantial e\ idenoe can supply the place of direct proof, only when it points plainly to a particular conclusion, and when it can be reasonably explained only upon such particular theory.
•4. The mere fact that the jury has allowed plaintiff less than the evidence shows him entitled to, if his theory of the case be adopted, does not establish the fact that the verdict was a compromise one.
Appeal from the Civil District Court. Houston, Judge.
Mott & Kelly for plaintiff.
D.D.-Simonds and. J. O. Kixon, Jr., for appellants.

Opinion:
Rogers, J.
The defendant appeals from a judgment against him for the sum of three hundred dollars. The case was tried, by a jury and the District Judge after argument refused a motion for a new trial. The questions presented by a most-voluminous record are principally questions of fact. After an examination we find the testimony conflicting and many facts-testified to irrelevant. We are not prepared to say that the-judgment is erroneous. This Court will not disturb the verdict of a jury when the testimony is conflicting and where the verdict was confirmed by the judge who was asked to grant a new trial, unless the judgment is manifestly erroneous.
Judgment affirmed.