
    Gustave Hagni, plaintiff in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
    The verdict was not without evidence to sustain it, so as to authorize this court to hold that there was an abuse of discretion by the judge who tried the case, in refusing the motion for a new trial.
    New trial. Before Judge Hopkins. Fulton Superior Court. October Term, 1873.
    Hagni was placed on trial for the offense of taking and carrying away, with intent to steal the same, “ one pale, yellow, muly-headod cow, of the value of $30 00, of the personal goods and chattels of Edward Beehtoldt.” The defendant pleaded not guilty. The jury found to the contrary. Amotion was made for a new trial because the verdict ivas contrary to the evidence. The motion was overruled and the defendant excepted. To report the evidence would illustrate no principle of law, and it is therefore omitted.
    A. B. Culberson; W. F. Wright; Howard Van Epps, for plaintiff in error.
    John T. Glenn, solicitor general, for the state.
   Trippe, Judge.

This is one of those cases where this court will not interfere with the discretion of the judge who tried it, in refusing a new trial. The ground taken in the motion, is that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The court overruled the motion, and we cannot say there was an abuse of discretion, though there were pretty strong circumstances in the case which, if the jury had seen proper to construe as counsel do, would have tended with some force to have relieved the defendant from the charge. Of these the jury were to determine, and we let their decision stand.

Judgment affirmed.  