
    Compton et al. vs. Wells et al.
    
    I Warner, Chief Justice, being engaged in presiding over the senate organized as a court of impeachment, did not sit in this case.]
    1. When the recitals of facts in the grounds of the motion for new trial are not certified to be true, either in the bill of exceptions or in the motion, by the presiding judge, those grounds will not be reviewed by this court.
    
      % The verdict is supported by enough evidence to sustain it, the same being approved by the presiding judge.
    New trial. Practice in the Superior Court. Practice in the Supreme Court. Before Judge Hood. Terrell Superior Court. November Term, 1878.
    Reported in the opinion.
    J. G. Parks ; J. H. Guerry ; D. A. Vason ; L. C. Hoyl, for plaintiffs in error.
    S. D. Irvin, for defendants.
   Jackson, Justice.

The grounds taken in the motion for a new trial are not certified by the judge to be true in fact, neither in bill of exceptions nor in the transcript of the record, on the motion or elsewhere. In such case, it has been repeatedly ruled that none can be considered except that which challenges the verdict as against law and unsupported by evidence.

The defendant relied upon prescriptive title and showed color of title and seven years’ possession, which was-enough to support the verdict both in respect to evidence and law.

Therefore the motion was properly overruled on this-ground, so far as this court under its repeated adjudications may interfere, there being no abuse of the discretion of the presiding judge.

Judgment affirmed.  