(After stating the foregoing facts.) The petition for certiorari contained the general grounds and one special ground. The special ground complained of the admission of testimony by French about a purported telephone talk between Friedman and some one at Nunnally & McCrea’s, French being then in Friedman’s office, when, according to French, Friedman was engaged in the telephone conversation. Friedman denied having the conversation, and moved that French’s testimony in that connection be excluded. The evidence was admitted. In his answer to the petition for certiorari, the trial judge added something to the evidence set forth in the petition about the alleged telephone conversation, and that addition was traversed by the plaintiff in certiorari, and counsel for the defendant in certiorari agreed that the traverse was correct and that the case should proceed “on the brief *557 of evidence as filed by the plaintiff in certiorari.” That evidence, while in sharp conflict on certain questions, amply authorized the verdict in the trial court; and the special assignment of error shows no cause for a reversal of the judgment. The overruling of the certiorari was not error.

This court, not being satisfied that the writ of error was prosecuted for the purpose of delay only, denies the prayer of the defendant in error for the assessment of damages.

Judgment affirmed.