
    GRICE vs. GRAHAM.
    1. If one of the grounds on which a new trial is moved, is that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the charge of the court, and the charge is not sent up, that ground will not be considered.
    2. The verdict of the jury not being contrary to the weight of evidence, a new trial will not be granted.
    Case, in Carroll superior court. Tried before Judge Hammond, October Term, 1858.
    This was an action by Graham against Grice, for maliciously and illegally suing out' an attachment against plaintiff, and seizing his horses and buggies, whereby he was damaged to the amount of three hundred dollars.
    The jury found for the plain tiff thirty-five dollars, and defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and the charge of the court. The court overruled the motion for a new trial, and defendant excepted.
    Burke & Black, for plaintiff in error.
    Merrill, contra.
    
   By the Court.

McDonald, J.,

delivering the opinion.

This was an action on the case for wilfully suing out an attachment against the plaintiff, and seizing his property thereon. The witnesses 'testified to rumors that the plaintiff had run away, but no facts were testified to which would support the rumors. He left home to carry his sister-in-law to Alabama, and it seems that he was the owner of a livery stable and stock, horses and buggies which he left behind him. The evidence shows that the defendant dismissed his attachments after the plaintiff came home and defended. The plaintiff proved expenses ' to which he had been put in consequence of the suing out the attachment, &c., &e. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence, the weight of the evidence and the charge of the court. The court below refused a new trial, and the judgment refusing it is assigned as error. The charge of the court to the jury is not sent up in the record, and that ground cannot, therefore be considered.

The jury were warranted by the evidence in finding that the attachment had been wrongfully issued and levied on the property of the plaintiff, and the damages found are moderate enough. The defendant ought to be well satisfied that a larger verdict was not rendered against Mm.

Judgment affirmed.  