
    Young, Appellant, v. Englehard & Silverberg.
    A motion for a new trial is always addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
    "Where a remittitur is entered to the amount of the excess complained of in a verdict, the overruling a motion for a new trial founded upon such excess, will not be ground for reversing the judgment upon such verdict.
    APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Lawrence county.
    This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by Young against Englehard and Silverberg in the circuit court of Lawrence county. In that court a verdict was rendered in favor of Young. The counsel for the defendants below moved the court for a new trial, and in support of their motion insisted, that the testimony of a witness uncontradicted was before the jury on the trial; that the defendants had paid to plaintiff the proceeds of three bales of cotton,, for which said defendants were sued; but the jury disregarded said testimony, and rendered a verdict not only for other sums, but for the value of said cotton also. The court decided that a new trial should be granted unless a remittitur was entered for the value of said cotton, whereupon the counsel of plaintiff came into court, and entered of record a remittitur upon the verdict, for the sum of one hundred and thirty-two dollars and forty-two cents. The court overruled the motion for a new trial, and rendered a judgment upon the verdict, after deducting the amount of the remittitur. From this judgment an appeal was prosecuted.
    Error assigned.
    That the court below erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.
    The Attorney-General, for appellant.
    Brown, contra.
    
   Mr. Chief Justice Shahkev

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the circuit court of Lawrence county. The jury found for the plaintiff below more than he was entitled to upon the evidence, and- on this account the defendants moved the court for a new trial. The plaintiff, before the motion was decided, came into court and entered a remittitur for the excess found, and after this entry the court refused the motion for a new trial, and thereon the defendants appealed.

A motion for a new trial is always directed to the sound discretion of the court under the evidence in, the case.

The record in this case shows that the remittitur was to the full amount of the excess, as shown by the testimony relied on by the defendants in support of their motion. If, then, it was clear to the court that the verdict, after deducting the amount of the remittitur, was right and supported by the testimony, it was then clearly a matter within the discretion of the court below, and we think they did not err in refusing the motion.

Judgment below affirmed.  