Case ID: ga-app_30/html/0779-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodworth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

14435.
    AUERBACH & SONS v. ELLINGTON, CRENSHAW & HORNE.
    This court is without power to interfere with the verdict, no specific error of law being complained of, and there being evidence in support of the verdict, which has been approved by the trial judge.
    Decided October 3, 1923.
    Complaint; from city court of Richmond county — Judge Black. February 14, 1923.
    
      J. S. Watkins, for plaintiffs. I. 8. Peebles, for defendants.
   Bloodworth, J.

No specific error of law is complained of. “ This court cannot say as a matter of law that the verdict is without'evidence to support it. The verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of evidence, the .trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court. Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), and cit.” Page v. State, 23 Ga. App. 548 (4) (99 S. E. 55).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.