The degree of proof in the two cases was entirely different, consequently the affidavit and the finding of the jury in the criminal case has no bearing whatever and did not belong in the civil case. Smith et al. v. Bryson, 33 S.W.2d 268; Piechotta v. Fried, 181 N.W. 602; Haverbekken v. Johnson, 228 S.W. 256; Bonino v. Caledonio, 11 N.E. 98; Fitzgerald v. Lewis, 41 N.E. 687; Adams, Revenue Agent, v. Sigman, 43 So. 877. Howie Howie, of Jackson, for appellee.
II. Reply to appellant's contention that the court erred in striking out certain parts of the answer of the defendant. Young, et al. v. Davis, 164 So. 586; Adams, Revenue Agent v. Sigman, 89 Miss. 844, 43 So. 877; Smith v. Bryson, 33 S.W.2d 268; Piechotta v. Fried, 46 N.D. 620, 181 N.W. 602; Haverbekken v. Johnson, 228 S.W. 256; Bonino v. Caledonio, 144 Mass. 299, 11 N.E. 98; Fitzgerald v. Lewis, 164 Mass. 495, 41 N.E. 687; Williams Yellow Pine Co. v. Williams, 193 So. 1; Dewitt v. Thompson, 7 So.2d 529; Rule 11, 1953 Revised Rules of Mississippi Supreme Court; Carlisle v. City of Laurel, 156 Miss. 410, 124 So. 786; Wilkinson v. State, 108 So. 711, 46 A.L.R. 896. III. Reply to appellant's contention that the verdict of the jury was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
" Also, to the same effect, see: Stromberg v. Hansen, 177 Minn. 307, 225 N.W. 148; Atchison etc. R. Co. v. Hinsdell, 76 Kan. 74, 90 P. 800, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 94, 13 Ann. Cas. 981; Keefe v. Hart, 213 Mass. 476, 100 N.E. 558, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 716; Smith v. Bryson, (Tex.), 33 S.W.2d 268; Oxford v. Berry, 204 Mich. 197, 170 N.W. 83; Torson v. Baehni, 134 Kan. 188, 5 P.2d 813; 28 Columbia Law Review, 841; 13 Chicago-Kent Review 268. Having thus stated what we consider the true legal principles applicable to the facts, let us now turn to the instructions.