
    Jinks v. Lewis & Son.
    1. It is no abuse Of discretion by the presiding judge to refuse a new trial on theground that counsel of the losing party, by inadvertence and oversight, failed to introduce a deed which was in his possession and which was a necessary link in his client’s chain of title, it not appearing what caused the inadvertence or oversight, or that the counsel did not discover it whilst the trial was still in progress and in time to move the court to reopen the case for the reception of this evidence.
    2. The evidence warranted the verdict.
    August 1, 1892.
    Claim. Evidence. New trial. Before Judge Martin. Taylor superior court. . November adjourned term, 1891.
    Claim was interposed by Mrs. Jinks to land levied on October 7, 1889, as the property of T. L. Jinks, under an execution in favor of Lewis & Son against T. L. Jinks et al., founded on a judgment of March 1, 1889. At the trial the sheriff who made the levy testified that at the time of the levy T. L. Jinks was in possession of the land and exercised acts of ownership thereof. The execution with the entry of levy was introduced.. The claimant introduced a deed from J. T. Taylor to herself, dated May 21, 1885, recorded the same day, and conveying the land in dispute in consideration of $1,200. No further evidence was introduced. The property was found subject. The claimant moved for a new trial (1) because the verdict “is contrary to equity and the principles of justice and equity”; and (2) because, through inadvertence and oversight, her counsel failed to introduce in evidence a deed which she had, dated December 18, 1884, from T. L. Jinks to J. T. Taylor, conveying the land in dispute in consideration of $1,000, T. L. Jinks being in- possession of the property at that time. Touching this ground the counsel made affidavit, that he was the only counsel for the claimant at the trial, that he had with him the deed from T. L. Jinks to J. T. Taylor, and purely from inadvertence and oversight he failed to introduce it in evidence, that the copy deed attached was a correct copy, and that the facts stated in this second ground were true.
   Judgment affirmed.

O. C. West and Thornton & McMichael, for plaintiff in error.

O. M. Colbert, contra.  