
    The Georgia Railroad & Banking Company v. McComb.
    The evidence being undisputed that the mule was killed by the running of the defendant’s locomotive, and the presumption of law being that there was negligence, and there being conflict in the evidence as to whether the observance of due diligence would have been effectual in preventing the injury, and consequently, whether such diligence was in fact observed, the verdict was not so palpably unwarranted as to justify the Supreme Court in setting it aside over the approval of the presiding judge in the court below.
    April 3, 1893.
    Argued at the last term.
    Action for damages. Before Judge Jenkins. Baldwin superior court. January term, 1892.
    This was a suit for the killing of a mule by the defendant’s train. The plaintiff obtained a verdict, and the defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds, that the finding was contrary to law and evidence, decidedly and strongly against the weight of evidence, etc. The motion was overruled.
    J. B. Cumming, Whiteield & Allen and Bryan Gumming, for plaintiff’ in error. Roberts & Pottle, contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed.  