#### Frederick Schultz, Appellant, v. Joseph Lepage, Appellee.

APPEAL EROM ST. CLAIR.

A judgment will not be reversed because the court below admitted improper evidence, if sufficient legal evidence appears in the record to sustain the verdict.

This was a suit commenced before a justice of the peace, byappellee against appellant and one Henry Solomon, defendants below, for killing and converting to their own use, hogs of the appellee, plaintiff below. An appeal was taken to the St. Clair Circuit Court, Sntder, Judge, and on the trial evidence was introduced tending to show that Schultz and Solomon had killed and converted to their own use, three hogs belonging to Lepage. There was, also, proof of injuries done to a sow, belonging to Lepage, by Schultz’s dogs, and a tender of three dollars by Schultz to Lepage, to pay for this damage; which testimony was objected to by defendant. The appellant, defendant below, asked the court for the following instruction, which was refused:

“ That this suit is brought in trespass, for hogs converted by defendants to their own use, and not for hogs or a sow killed by the dogs of the defendant, without their fault; and that, if the jury believe that Schultz did not know of his dogs killing the sow, and did not cause her to be killed, they cannot find the value thereof for the plaintiff, notwithstanding the tender of three dollars by Schultz.”

The jury found a verdict for plaintiff for twenty-two dollars; and Schultz appeals to this court.

Z. M. Walsh, N. Niles, and G. Koerner, for Appellant.

W. H. and J. B. Underwood, for Appellee.

Breese, J.

The evidence in this case fully establishes the trespass complained of by Lepage. The facts stated by Lon-good, the principal witness, show, most conclusively, that these hogs, the property of Lepage, were killed by Schultz and converted to his own use, and that their value was twenty-two dollars. This leaves any inquiry about the sow, worried by the dogs, for which Schultz tendered three dollars as amends, unnecessary.

As to the instruction asked for by the defendant, it was properly refused, because the plaintiff’s claim for three hogs, besides the sow, was fully made out by the proof. The value of the *161sow was not included in it, for the three hogs the witness saw butchered, were worth, two of them, seven dollars each, and one, eight dollars; making the amount found by the jury.

It is immaterial, as this court has frequently decided, that improper evidence has been admitted, so that they find sufficient legal evidence in the record to sustain the verdict. This we find in this case, and accordingly affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.