No. 105—2375.

#### O’Neill v. O’Neill.

The court is of opinion that the preponderance of the evidence in this case clearly warrants the conclusion that the note in suit was in fact' executed by defendants for certain indebtedness due from them jointly to the plaintiff’s testator ; that said note was lost, and that it had never been negotiated or indorsed by the payee or her executors, and therefore the verdict for the balance due on the note computing interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, was warranted by the evidence. The motion for a new trial was properly refused.

Affirmed.

Opinion by

Bailey P. J.

Judge below, Kirk Hawes. Attorneys, for appellant, Mr. J. N. Jemison; for appellee, Mr. M. J. Dunne.