#### A. J. CHESSON v. S. L. LYNCH and J. P. LYNCH.

(Filed 12 November, 1924.)

Appeal by defendants from Horton,- J., and a jury, at February Term, 1924, of Lenoie.

Bouse & Bouse, and Shaw, J ones & J ones, and Cowper, Whitaker & Allen for plaintiff.

George M. Lindsay and O. H. Guión for defendants.

Pee Oueiam.

When this case was here before (186 N. C., p. 625) we said: “The nonsuit as to J. P. Lynch will be reversed and the entire ease remanded for a general new trial.”

The material issue presented to the jury for consideration was as follows: “Did the defendants unlawfully, willfully and wantonly conspire together to injure and injure the plaintiff in his property rights and position with the A. J. Ohesson Agricultural Company, as alleged in the complaint?” The jury answered this issue “Yes.”

We have examined the record carefully, and the exceptions and assignments of error. We have heard the arguments of counsel and examined their briefs, but can find no prejudicial or reversible error.

The defendants’ assignments of error were:

> *830“Tbe defendants assign as error tbe refusal of tbe court to nonsuit tbe plaintiffs upon tbe grounds tbat upon tbe entire evidence in tbe case tbe plaintiff was not entitled to maintain tbe action set out in tbe complaint against tbe defendants.

> “For tbat bis Honor declined to set aside tbe verdict of tbe jury, for tbat as a matter of law tbe jury was not justified in answering tbe issues as found in tbe record, for tbat upon tbe entire evidence in tbe case tbe plaintiff was not entitled to damages upon tbe cause of action appearing in tbe evidence.”

We tbink tbe pleadings and evidence showed a good cause of action. Tbe facts were for tbe jury. Tbey decided against tbe defendants. We can find

No error.