SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

LORIN C. COLLINS, J. This was an action brought to recover of Egan, Cuvellier, and Thornton as copartners the sum of $930.55, Unitel States currency, for supplies furnished to a saloon in Tabernilla.
As to the amount of the indebtedness there is no dispute; the only contention being raised by Cuvellier and Thornton that they were not partners of Egan in the saloon.
On the first trial judgment was rendered against the three but afterwards a new trial was granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
On the second trial Egan swore that Cuvellier and Thornton were his partners. Ankron testified that Egan and Cuvellier told him that the three were partners. Carnot stated that he sold his business to Egan, Cuvellier, and Thornton. Being asked what Thornton said to him concerning his connection with the business he replied that Thornton told hinr that Cuvellier and he (Thornton) were partners in the business.
The defendants offered no evidence but demurred to that of the plaintiff.
The court sustained the demurrer and found the issues for defendants. This was error. A perfect case was made by the evidence presented and the issues should have been found for the plaintiff, and his damages assessed at $930.55 and the defendant Lam Hing Lung ordered to pay the $900 with interest to the plaintiff to be applied in the reduction of the judgment.
This cause is, therefore, reversed and judgment entered here for the sum of $930.55 with interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum from the date of the first judgment in said cause, to wit, April 16, 1909. The clerk is directed to make such computation of interest, add the same to the $930.55 and enter judgment for the amount so found. It is further ordered that the said defendant, Lam Hing Lung, pay into the registry of this court the sum of $900 together with such interest as may be due thereon, not however in excess of the judgment and costs of this case.
It is further ordered that the costs of this proceeding be taxed against the defendants Egan, Cuvellier, and Thornton, jointly and severally.
The other errors assigned are not necessary to discuss in view of the conclusion reached by the court.
The CHIEF JUSTICE concurred.
Reversed with judgment.

44