
    William M. Lane, plaintiff in error, vs. John W. Cunningham, guardian, defendant in error.
    Where the discretion of the Court below is not abused in ordering a new trial this court will not interfere.
    New trial. Before Judge Andrews. Oglethorpe Superior Court. October Term, 1872.
    On April 28th, 1869, an execution in favor of William M. Lane against John W. Cunningham for $126 44 principal, with interest and costs, based upon a judgment recovered at October term, 1862, of Oglethorpe superior court, was levied ■ on a tract of land as the property of the defendant. A claim to the same was filed by Cunningham, as the guardian of Robert J. Fleeman.
    Upon the trial, the evidence made the following case :
    On September 7th, 1860, Cunningham conveyed the property in controversy to John M. Kidd. On June 5th, 1866, it was sold under an execution in favor of Cunningham against Kidd, to Joseph A. Childers. On the 3d of the following October, Cunningham, as guardian of Robert J. Flee-man, purchased the land from Childers for the sum of $530 00, taking a deed to the same.
    One James M. Wright testified that Cunningham told him in the year 1867, that the land in controversy belonged to him.
    This evidence was objected to by claimanyipon the ground that the declarations of Cunningham, in accordance with his interest, were inadmissible. The objection ’Was overruled, and claimant excepted.
    The evidence was voluminous. It is thought unnecessary to incorporate it here, as it does not tend to illustrate any principle of law enunciated in the decision. The plaintiff sought to show that though the legal title was in claimant, yet, in fact, the property belonged to Cunningham individually.
    The jury found the property subject. The claimant moved for a new trial upon numerous grounds, and amongst them, because the court erred in admitting the aforesaid testimony of Wright, and because the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The court sustained the motion upon both grounds, holding that the testimony of Wright was improperly admitted, for the reason that the declarations of Cunningham were inadmissible to bind his ward, who was the real party at interest.
    To this decision ordering a new trial, plaintiff excepted.
    John C. Reed, by Samuel Lumpkin, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. D. Matthews, for defendant.
   Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a claim case, and on the trial thereof the jury found the property subject to the execution levied thereon. A motion was made for a new trial on the several grounds set ■ forth in the record, which was granted by the court on the ground of error in admitting the evidence of Wright, and because the verdict was strongly and .decidedly against the weight of the evidence. In looking through the evidence in the record, and considering the alleged error in admitting Wright’s testimony, we find no error in granting the new trial in this case.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.  