Case Name: DOE, ex dem., HANBY AND DOSS, vs. ROE, cas. ejector, AND TUCKER
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1859-06
Citations: 28 Ga. 484
Docket Number: 
Parties: DOE, ex dem., HANBY AND DOSS, vs. ROE, cas. ejector, AND TUCKER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 484–485

Head Matter:
DOE, ex dem., HANBY AND DOSS, vs. ROE, cas. ejector, AND TUCKER.
If there be a conflict of testimony, and the circuit judge refuses to grant a new trial, this court will not interfere, although, in their opinion, the weight'of testimony is
Ejectment, in Clay Superior Court. Tried before Judge Xiddoo, and motion for new trial heard and decided at March Term, 1859.
This was an action of ejectment upon the several demises of Absalom Hanby and Azariah Doss, against Sarah E-Tucker, tenant in possession, for recovery of lot of land number 383, in the seventh district of originally Lee, but now Clay, county.
This ease was before this court upon exceptions to the rulings and decisions made by the court below, at June term, 1857, and will be found reported in 22d Geo. Rep., p. 132, when the judgment below was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
The case coming on again for trial, at September term, 1858, the jury, upon the proofs submitted, found again for the defendant; whereupon, plaintiff took a rule nisi for a new trial, upon the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence and decidedly against the weight of evidence.
The court refused to make the rule absolute and plaintiff excepted.
E. H. Beall, for plaintiff in error.
Douglass & Douglass, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.,
delivering the opinion.
We think the verdict contrary to the weight of evidence in this case; but not so strongly and decidedly so as to authorize a new trial, especially when it has been refused by the circuit judge who presided on the trial of the cause.
We rather think this lot of land has been made without being paid for. Still there is a conflict of testimony; and the jury were probably the best judges as to the facts.
Judgment affirmed.