
    18124.
    ALLEN v. THE STATE.
    There being some evidence in support of the verdict, and the motion for a new trial being based only on the usual general .grounds, the judgment overruling the motion must be affirmed.
    Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 922, n. 3; p. 929, n. 86; p. 930, n. 93; 17 C. J. p. 271, n. 41.
    Decided July 14, 1927.
    Arson; from Wilcox superior court—Judge Crum. April 23, 1927.
    
      
      Hal Lawson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      T. Hoyt Davis, solicitor-general, contra.
   Bloodworti-i, J.

The motion for a new trial contains the general grounds only. “The decision of every issue of fact is exclusively for the jury.” Davis v. Kirkland, 1 Ga. App. 5 (1) (58 S. E. 209). “No principle of law is founded upon better reason or has been more strictly adhered to by this court than that the jury are the proper judges of the weight and sufficiency of-testimony and of the credibility of witnesses, and this court will not disturb the verdict of a jury where there is evidence to support its findings. Stricklin v. Crawley, 1 Ga. App. 139 (58 S. E. 215); Charles v. Brooker, 1 Ga. App. 219 (58 S. E. 218); Daughtry v. S. & S. Ry. Co., 1 Ga. App. 393 (58 S. E. 230).” Unity Cotton Mills v. Hasty, 19 Ga. App. 590 (2) (91 S. E. 916). There is some evidence to support the verdict, and “whenever there is any evidence,however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.  