
    Richmond & Danville Railroad Co. v. Herrington.
    The motion for a new trial presenting no questions -which can be dealt with by the Supreme Court, except those arising upon the general grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, and the evidence being sufficient to warrant the verdict, no reason appears for setting it aside after its approval by the trial court. Judgment affirmed.
    
    July 30, 1894.
    Action for damages. Before Judge Hutchins. Gwinnett superior court. September term, 1893.
    J. B. Estes, for plaintiff' in error.
    C. H. Brand, contra.
    
   This was a suit by Mrs. Herrington for being wrongfully put off a passenger-train in the dark at a country road-crossing, four .or five miles from Duluth, the point to which she had paid her fare. She had in charge a child of six years, beside her packages. She claimed also to have been bruised and injured in her feet and ankles by having to jump from the car some distance to the ground, and thereby disabled from work. Her testimony was to the effect that the mistake in putting her oflc at the crossing was due to the conductor’s negligence; while the testimony for the defendant tended to show that the name of the crossing was announced in her hearing, that she voluntarily left the train there, and was carefully assisted to the ground by the conductor after he asked her, “ Do you want to get off’ here ?” and that the mistake, if any, was her own. She obtained a verdict for $500, and defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled.  