#### I. S. ROBINSON v. ED. D. HUFFSTETLER.

(Filed 5 May, 1915.)

Appeal and Error — Matters of Fact.

This action seeking to recover damages for wrongfully detaining the plaintiff’s mules, involves largely matters of fact, with' instructions following the rulings on a former appeal, and no error is found.

Appeal by defendant from Shaw, J., at September Term, 1914, of GASTON.

Civil action, brought to recover two mules alleged to have been wrongfully detained by tbe defendant, and damages alleged to have been sustained by tbe plaintiff. Tbe following are tbe issues submitted:

1. Is tbe plaintiff tbe owner and entitled to tbe possession of tbe two black mare mules, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: “Yes.”

2. What is tbe value of said mules? Answer: “$450.”

3. What damage, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant by reason of tbe wrongful detention of tbe said mules ? Answer: “None.”

Mason & Mason, George W. Wilson for plaintiff.

Mangum & Woltz, A. G. Jones for defendant.

Pee CuetaM.'

This case was before this Court at Spring Term, 1914, and is reported in 165 N. C., 459. In tbe opinion of Mr. Justice Allen tbe law applicable.to tbe facts of this case is fully discussed, and in tbe *253last trial tbe court below bas carefully followed tbe opinion of tbis Court. Tbe matters submitted to tbe jury were largely questions of fact, and bave been determined by tbe jury under a charge free from error.

"We bave examined tbe several assignments of error, and find tbem to be without merit.

No error.