W. H. Fitzgerald , for the appellants. 1. The verdict was not warranted by the evidence. From the evidence a wrong had been perpetrated by Pattison against Goings, and the jury were warranted in finding a verdict against him because of the technical wrong, but not for exemplary damages. The suit was brought against Alex. Pattison and Jerry Robinson, and not the firm of Robinson Pattison. The judgment by default in the magistrate's court was against them individually, but in all of the proceedings of the circuit court, including the judgment, they were treated as the firm of Robinson Pattison. Against Robinson no verdict at all should have been found. He was in no way a participant in the wrong of his partner in trade, Pattison, but because he was such partner he was held equally liable. The jury thought that the wrongful act of Pattison was within the scope of the partnership business, and that Robinson, therefore, was equally to blame, or it may be they conjectured that the note sent by the witness Walter to Pattison contained directions or advice to Pattison to take the cotton, but that was the merest conjecture. 2. I submit that the conduct of Pattison evidenced no malice, recklessness, oppression, or outrage, and that the taking of the cotton was not attended with insult to any one. When the driver heard Pattison say he had a deed of trust upon the cotton and intended to hold it until \hell froze over

Cooper.

\" he did not insist upon carrying it to Thayer's