Case Name: HEATON v. PUCKETT
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1924-01-16
Citations: 31 Ga. App. 526
Docket Number: 14769
Parties: HEATON v. PUCKETT.
Judges: Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 526–527

Head Matter:
14769.
HEATON v. PUCKETT.
When a verdict approved by the trial judge is supported by any evidence, this court will not disturb it because of alleged insufficiency of evidence.
There is no merit in the amendment to the motion for a new trial.
Decided January 16, 1924.
Trover; from Haralson superior court—Judge Irwin. April 26, 1923.
Griffith & Matthews, for plaintiff.
M. J. Head, Taylor Smith, for defendant.

Opinion:
Bloodworth, J.
There is no merit in the amendment to the motion for a new trial.
The verdict is approved by the trial judge, and we cannot say that there is no evidence to support it. In Rogers v. State, 101 Ga. 562, 563 (28 S. E. 978), Justice Cobb said: "Applications for new trials on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to evidence are addressed to a sound legal discretion to be exercised by the trial judges. When this discretion has been exercised and tffe motion for a new trial overruled, this court will not interfere where there is any evidence which would justify the jury in reaching the conclusion which it set forth in the verdict. While in many cases we would probably not have rendered the verdict returned, and, if we were authorized to pass upon the case as on appeal, would render here a different judgment, still under the established practice of this court as required by the law of this State, we cannot overrule a trial judge, who, fresh from the atmosphere of the trial, sends to us a record in which he endorses the finding of the jury which tried the case in his presence. This is true even in cases where the evidence might be described as weak, unsatisfactory, and doubtful. The wisdom and discretion of the trial judge is sufficient for us to endorse his judgment in cases of this character."
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.