
    Dickson v. Morgan.
    There being sufficient evidence to . sustain the verdict and no question of law being involved, there was no abuse of .discretion in refusing to grant a new trial. Judgment affirmed.
    
    March 26, 1894.
    Argued at the last term.
    
      Complaint on note. Before Judge Henry. Walker superior court. February term, 1892.
    R. M. W. Glenn, McCutchen & Shumate and J. W. Maddox, for plaintiff in error.
    Lumpkin & Shattuck, contra.
    
   The suit was upon a note for $800 with certain credits. Defendant pleaded non est factum; that he purchased of plaintiff land for which he was to pay $800, of which $200 and interest was to fall due in the same year, which he paid before maturity; that he executed his note payable to plaintiff, on which he had made payments aggregating the amount of the credits on the note sued upon; and that the note was for $600, and plaintiff had raised it, for the purpose of defrauding him, by altering 6 to 8 so that the note would read $800. The evidence was directly, conflicting. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. The motion was overruled.  