| Tex. | Dec 15, 1847
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Lipscomb and Mr. Justice Wheelee not sitting.
1st. Denied in general terms all the allegations of the-petition.
2d. Insisted that the considerations of the writing obligatory sued on had entirely failed; and
3d. Pleaded in effect that the plaintiff was indebted to-her intestate in the sum of four hundred and forty-six dollars- and twenty-five cents, and asked a judgment over against the' plaintiff for that sum.
The plea in offset is accompanied by a bill of particulars of an apparently unobjectionable character, and to which no-exception appears to have been taken in the district court.
-There was a trial and verdict in favor of the defendant for the amount claimed by her. A motion was then made on the part of the plaintiff for a new trial on the following alleged grounds:
“ 1st. Because the verdict of the jury was against law and evidence.
“2d. Because the jury treated as a nullity the bond on. which the suit was brought.
“ 3d. Because the jury gave a verdict in favor of the defendant on an account barred by the statute of limitations, before it was pleaded.
“4th. Because the defendant, in her plea in reconvention,, tacitly admitted the genuineness of said bond, which was overlooked by the jury and disregarded by them.
“ oth. Because of misconduct in the jury after leaving the box, and before rendering their verdict.
“ 6th. Because of in’competency in one of the júrors to sit in the case.”
This motion was overruled by the court, and a judgment rendered in accordance with the verdict. No exception appears, from the record, to have been taken to the refusal of thee