
    Stevens vs. Middlebrooks.
    There is some evidence to support the verdict; and where such is the case, the judgment of the court below refusing a new trial, on the ground that the verdict is contrary to law and evidence, will not be disturbed by this court.
    April 6, 1886.
    New Trial. Evidence. Verdict. Before Judge Lump-kin. Hancock Superior Court. October Term, 1885.
    Reported in the decision.
    James Whitehead, by J. H. Lumpkin, for plaintiff in error.
    James A. Harley; Jordan & Lewis, for defendant.
   Blandford, Justice.

A verdict having been rendered in favor of the defendant in the court below, the plaintiff moved for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict is without evidence to support it. The court refused the motion, and the plaintiff excepted.

There is some evidence to support the verdict, and when this is the case, the judgment of the court refusing the new trial cannot be disturbed by this court.

Judgment affirmed.  