
    14002.
    TERRELL v. THE STATE.
    Where there is any evidence to support a verdict, the discretion of the trial judge in overruling a motion for a new trial will not be interfered with by this court because of alleged insufficiency of the evidence.
    Decided December 12, 1922.
    Indictment for larceny from house; from DeKalb superior court — Judge Hutcheson. September 23, 1922.
    
      W. H. Gaddis, Ernest G. Bentley, for plaintiff in error.
    
      B. H. Burgess, solicitor-general pro tern., contra.
   Bloodworth, J.

The special grounds of the motion for a new-trial are but amplifications of the general grounds; the verdict has the approval of the trial judge, and we cannot say that there is no evidence to support it. In Rogers v. State, 101 Ga. 562 (28 S. E. 978), Judge Cobb said: “Applications for new trials on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to evidence are addressed to a sound legal discretion to be exercised by the-trial judges. “When this discretion has been exercised and the motion for a new trial overruled, this court will not interfere when there is any evidence which would justify the jury in reaching the conelusion which is set forth in the verdict. While in many cases we would probably not have rendered the verdict returned, and, if we were authorized to pass upon the case as on appeal, would render here a different judgment, still under the established practice of this court as required by the law of the State, we cannot overrule a trial judge, who, fresh from the atmosphere of the trial, sends to us a record in which he endorses the finding of the jury which tried the case in his presence. This is true even in cases where the evidence might be described as weak, unsatisfactory, and doubtful. The wisdom and discretion of the trial judge is sufficient for us to endorse his judgment in cases of this character.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.  