68 Wn.2d 973, LOLA GOVETT, Respondent, v. FIRST PACIFIC INVESTMENT CO., et al., Appellants THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. ROBERT ANDERSON, Appellant

[No. 38245. Department Two.      Supreme Court     May 5, 1966.]

LOLA GOVETT, Respondent, v. FIRST PACIFIC INVESTMENT CO., et al., Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 610633, Henry Clay Agnew, J., entered January 26, 1965. Affirmed.

Action for fraud. Defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Barbara Ohnick, for appellants.

Kathreen Mechem, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. -

As in Ormiston v. Boast, ante p. 548, 413 P.2d 969 (1966), the instant appeal is primarily factual, and the substance of it is that the plaintiff disagrees with the findings of the trial court. As explained in Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183 (1959), and many times since, we do not retry factual issues, and our examination of the record where a finding of fact is challenged, goes no further than to determine whether there is substantial evidence to sustain that finding. Christensen v. Columbia Acceptance Corp., 66 Wn.2d 347, 402 P.2d 497 (1965); Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Pacific Indem.

Co., 66 Wn.2d 38, 401 P.2d 205 (1965); Harris v. Rivard, 64 Wn.2d 173, 390 P.2d 1004. If there is substantial evidence to support a finding, it becomes a verity so far as we are concerned. We have examined the record and found substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings. We therefore affirm the judgment.

68 Wn.2d 973, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. ROBERT ANDERSON, Appellant

[No. 37961. Department One.      Supreme Court      May 12, 1966.]

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. ROBERT ANDERSON, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 17721, George H. Freese, J., entered September 17, 1964. Affirmed.

Prosecution for traffic offenses. Defendant appeals from a conviction and sentence.

Howard H. Herman, for appellant.

George A. Kain, Benjamin N. Brunner, and Donald C. Brockett, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. -

Robert Anderson was charged and convicted in Justice Court on three counts as follows: (1) driving while under the influence of or affected by the use of intoxicating liquor, (2) negligent driving, (3) driving while operator's license was suspended or revoked.

On appeal to the Superior Court for the County of Spokane, he was again similarly charged, tried de novo before a jury, and again convicted. He has appealed to the Supreme Court.

We have examined the briefs, heard argument, and reviewed the record on appeal. On this basis we have evaluated appellant's assignments of eror. We find no merit in them, individually or collectively.

* Reported in 413 P.2d 972.

Reported in 414 P.2d 49.

 974    MEMORANDUM CASES                [68 Wn.2d

There would be no precedental value in outlining the facts or in elaborating further upon appellant's assignments of error, or our evaluation and disposition of these.

The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered.