The merit of this appeal involves the sole question as to whether or not there was sufficient evidence of mistake or fraud to be submitted to the jury. The only evidence bearing upon the question is the testimony of plaintiff, Laura Evans. She testified both ways upon *275 tbe subject. In one portion of ber testimony sbe said: “After we bad our bargain witb Winbrow be came back there and read tbe contract.” At another time sbe testified that sbe bad no conversation witb Win-brow, tbe agent of defendant. However, it appears that sbe further testified that there was a misreading of tbe deed to ber at tbe time of ber signature, and that tbe defendant and bis agent were present. Tbe defendant Cowan denied that be was present, and Mr. Taylor, tbe justice of tbe peace, denied that there was any false reading of tbe deed.

Conflicting statements of a witness in regard to a material or vital fact do not warrant a withdrawal of tbe case from tbe jury. Such inconsistencies only affect tbe credibility of tbe witness, and it is tbe function of tbe jury to determine whether any weight or what weight shall be given to tbe testimony. Shell v. Roseman, 155 N. C., 90; Christman v. Hilliard, 167 N. C., 5; Smith Coach Line, 191 N. C., 589.

We bold, upon tbe record, that there was sufficient evidence to be submitted to tbe jury, and tbe judgment is

Affirmed.