SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

WESLEY M. OWENS, J. This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Caaal Zone, Hon. H. A. Gudger, presiding. The case was twice before that court. In the last trial judgment was obtained against the appellee Janms B. Palmer, for ninety dollars ($90), United States currency, and costs of action, while the co-defenlant, Carnot, was relieved from legal liability. Casado excepted to the judgment and made his motion for a new trial; such motion being overruled the same is now before this court for review on the motion and appeal of appellant alleging as error: First, insufficiency of judgment; second, error of court in directing the stenographer as to thematter of reporting certain evidence; third, prayer for specific performance. In the written brief and argument made to this court appellant abandons his third assignment of error and relies entirely upon assignments numbered one and two which alone will be considered by this court.
From the evidence it appears that in June, 1908, appellant and appellee (Palmer), entered into a written agreement for the sale to appellant of certain property, more particularly described as houses numbered five and six on the main street of Tabernilla, Canal Zone; the consideration mentioned in said contract was one thousand dollars ($1,000), one hundred dollars of which was to pass with contract in the form of an order on one Pascal Canavaggio,-while residue was to be paid the day the document of sale was made public or delivered.
The contract further provided among other things that Palmer was to vacate said house in the fixed period of three or four days, counting from the date of the execution of the contract. The contract bears the signature of the parties as well as of two witnesses.
The order for $100 was accepted by Palmer but subsequently returned to appellant without being presented for payment. Appellant refused to accept return of order and at that time made a tender of the residue of nine hundred dollars ($900) to be paid. Such tender was accompanied with the demand on Palmer for an instrument of conveyance of said property in compliance with contract. Palmer not only refused to accept the tender and deliver the conveyance, but alleged that he had been the victim of fraud and that appellant had fraudulently misrepresented not only the contents of the contract but other facts to him.
From the evidence it developed that Palmer did not and never

20