delivered the opinion of the Court.

The suit is to recover, not for work done, but for a breach of contract.

Appellant admits that it endeavored to induce appellee to work the balance of the year for $10 per week, as the mill was not running, but denies that it discharged him.

We think, under the conflicting evidence, that the jury were warranted in finding the issue for appellee.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.