
    The American Marble Company v. Delk.
    Where the evidence as to whether sand and “sliekings” from a marble mill caused the injury, or materially contributed thereto, is conflicting, the refusal to grant a new trial on that question was not error.
    December 9, 1889.
    Evidence. Verdict. Before Judge Winn. Cobb superior court. March term, 1889.
    Reported in the decision.
    Clay & Blair, for plaintiff in error.
    C. D. Phillips and J. Z. Foster, contra.
    
   Bleckley, Chief Justice.

The action was for damages to a mill and fish-pond by partially filling it up with sand and “sliekings” from a marble mill situated at a considerable distance above the pond and not immediately upon any tributary of the stream, but connected with one of them by an artificial ditch. The evidence was conflicting as to whether the marble mill contributed at all, or if so, whether it contributed materially to filling up the pond. The jury found that it did, and gave a verdict in behalf of the plaintiff below, for $100 damages. No error of law upon the trial is complained of, the sole complaint being against the verdict. We think it was warranted by the evidence, and was not contrary to, law. There was no error in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.  