#### B. T. POLLOCK v. CARRIE KINSEY, CARRIE KINSEY, Administratrix of GUY T. KINSEY, and CARRIE KINSEY, Guardian of Children of GUY T. KINSEY.

(Filed 30 September, 1925.)

Appeal by Carrie Kinsey, from Barnhill, J., and a jury, April Term, 1925, of JoNes. No error.

The issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:

“1. Did the plaintiff furnish merchandise to S. E. Garner and J. E. Lovitt during the year 1920, at the request and upon the promise of the defendant to pay therefor? Answer: Yes.

“2. If so, in what amount, if any,- is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff? Answer: $1,313.26, with interest from 1 January, 1921.”

*857Tbe court below rendered judgment for plaintiff against Carrie Kinsey, exceptions and assignments of error were duly made by defendant, Carrie Kinsey, to tbe exclusion of certain evidence during tbe trial, tbe charge of tbe court and judgment, and sbe appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

J. K. Warren and Cowper, Whitaleer & Allen for plaintiff.

Rouse & Rouse for defendant.-

Per Cueiam.

¥e beard tbe oral arguments and read tbe record and

-tbe carefully prepared briefs of counsel. We tbink tbat tbe court below made no error in excluding tbe evidence, and tbe charge of tbe court below was in accordance with law. From tbe entire record we can find no prejudicial or reversible error. We tbink tbe case governed by tbe principle laid down in Taylor v. Lee, 187 N. C., p. 393, and cases cited.

No error.