{"character_count": 1769, "word_count": 309, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9779999852180481], "ccnet_perplexity": [688.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
THOMSON, et at. USE, Sc. rS. SEYMoRE.

 Per SEBASTIAN, J-JAN H. The only question presented by the record is, as to the propriety of the judge who tried the cause having overruled the motion for new trial, made upon the trial below The ground alleged as cause for new trial IS, that the receipt offered in evidence by defendant, was for an amount of money few cents less than the aggregate of the principal and interest due upon the writing obligatory. The receipt was ln full of the writing obligatory sued on by it's terms, and is to be taken as prima facie evi- dence of what 1t imports, and conclusive, unless shown to have been executed by mis- take, procure1 by fraud, or its veracitv or conclusiveness impeached in some other manner. It was evidently regarded by the parties as substantial satisfaction no mistake Is shown, as the sum specified in the writing obligatory and the receipt are the same. The amount due and that received in payment of Ii, were known to both parties, and it was competent for the plaintiff to receive it in dis charge, and so the receipt imports The facts stated mlghtnot amountto technical payment so as to support the defendants plea, yet the verdict attained the substantial juctice of the case, and adjusted the rights of the parties. in accordance with the import of the receipt The consideration that the jury finds yer. dict different from the views of the court, as to the facts will not warrant the latter in set

 ting 1t aside, and the court will, and should respect verdict which does substantial jus

 tice between the parties, although it may no adjust their rights upon strictly legal foot ing. We think, therefore, that the circui

 court did right in overruling the defendant. motion for new trial. Judgment affirmed