Case ID: georgia-decisions_1/html/0082-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NEW TKI4ES.
    Jacob R. Davis, Guardian of Erasmus, claiming his freedom, vs. The Executors of Samuel Hale.
    
      Trespass, in Nature of Ravishment of Ward.
    A verdict’s being against evidence is net a ground for a new trial, where testimony, on both sides, has been submitted to the Jury, on which they might find either way. Nor, where there have been two concurrent verdicts, and no rule of law violated.
    In this caso, there have been two concurring verdicts, in favor of the plaintiff, establishing his freedom ; and a motion for a new trial is now made, upon the following ground; — “That the verdict is “ against evidence, inasmuch as no sufficient proof was offered, of “ the freedom of the plaintiff’s ward,” The proofs, offered in the ease, were of a contrary character. According to one set of witnesses, the boy, Erasmus, was said to be the son of a white woman; and from other evidence of pedigree, it was said, that he was the son of a white man, who left him free at iwenty-one years of age. And in addition to these two contradictory tales, it was further proven, that the boy had been left in the care of some person, in South Carolina, not in the character of a slave, but more in the character of a free person of color. But how the boy got out, of the possession of that person, and came to this State, does not appear. And the next we hear of him is in this State, in possession of Benjamin Sims, exercis* ing acts of ownership over him, as a slave, and who sold him as such, to the person who now claims him, as his slave, bv purchase from Sims. But whilst the boy was held bv Sims, it was proved, by one witness, that Sims said, he had no right to hold the boy, after ho arrived at the age of twenty-one years, or words to this effect. And this is the substance of the evidence, adduced on the trial.
   The rule for granting new trials, upon the ground of a want of evidence, is that there is no evidence, upon which the verdict of the Jury can be supported. But, if there be any evidence to support the verdict, although it may be contradictory, and even if the Court ⅛⅜⅜⅜⅞⅜ of opinion, .that had'the case been tried beiore: the Court itself, it would have giyen a.different .verd&t upon the facts; yet the •fj.hyy, in such cases, being .the. solo judges of the quantum, as well as fhe force and effect, of the evidence adduced before them, no new trial will be granted. — -See Graham on N. Trials, 284, 881 ; 3 Morgan, 240; 1 Wilson, 22; 3 Binney, 317. Nor will a new trial be granted, where there is evidence on both sides, and no rule of Law violated, nor manifest injustice clone, although there may appear ⅜ have been a preponderance of evidence, against the verdict. — 2 Strange, 1142. Nor will a new trial be granted, when there have been two concurring verdicts, and no rule of Law violated. — 3 Taunt. 232 ; 2 John. R. 457 ; 7 Wendd, 270 ; 3 J. J. Marshal, 421 ; 5 Mass, R. 353.

In this case, there being evidence on both sides of the question, submitted to the Jury, and upon which they might have found, either for plaintiff or defendant; and, secondly, there being two concur, ring verdicts, establishing the freedom of the plaintiff’s ward ; and, thirdly, there being no rule of Law violated, in the trial of the case, and no manifest injustice done by the verdict, it is the decision of this Court, that a new trial be, and is hereby, refused.