#### HATTIE B. HORNER, Administratrix of J. T. HORNER, v. THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK.

(Filed 16 April, 1924.)

Appeal by defendant from Sinclair, J., at October Term, 1923, of CuMBERLAND.

Civil action tried upon tbe following issues:

“1. Was tbe Grant automobile described in defendant’s policy No. Au-1128 stolen during tbe currency of said policy, as alleged in tbe complaint? A. Yes.

“2. Was plaintiff’s intestate tbe owner of tbe Grant automobile described in tbe complaint at tbe time it disappeared from bis garage? A. Yes.

“3. Is tbe car now in tbe possession of J. A. McGougan, Raeford, N. 0., tbe same car as tbe one referred to in tbe complaint? A. Yes.

“4. Wbat sum, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant on said policy on account of said car having been stolen? A. $1,000 with interest from May, 1922, until paid.”

Judgment on tbe verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

W. C. Downing and Nimocks & Nimocks for plaintiff.

Cook & Cook and S. C. McPhail for defendant.

Per Curiam.

Several serious exceptions are entered on tbe record, but a careful perusal of tbe whole case confirms us in tbe belief that no violence has been done to any legal principle in tbe trial of tbe cause. Hence tbe judgment will be upheld. Tbe appeal presents no new or novel point of law which would seem to warrant an extended discussion, or which we apprehend would be helpful or beneficial to tbe profession. We have discovered no legal or reversible error on tbe part of tbe trial court.

No error.