Case Name: Willam C. Sawyer, plaintiff in error, vs. Andrew J. Pace, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1871-07
Citations: 43 Ga. 379
Docket Number: 
Parties: Willam C. Sawyer, plaintiff in error, vs. Andrew J. Pace, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 379–380

Head Matter:
Willam C. Sawyer, plaintiff in error, vs. Andrew J. Pace, defendant in error.
Where the evidence is conflicting and no rule of law violated in submitting the facts to the jury, this Court will not interfere with the judgment of the Court below in refusing to set aside the verdict, on the ground, that it is contrary to the evidence.
New trial refused. Before Judge Harrell. Randolph Superior Court. May Term, 1871.
Pace sued Sawyer on an open account for $298 70; Sawyer pleaded a set-off for $146 40, and Pace obtained a verdict for $165 00. Sawyer moved for a new trial upon the sole grounds that the verdict was strongly and decidedly against the weight of the evidence and contrary to law. The new trial was refused, and this is complained of here.
John T. Clark, for plaintiff in error.
Hood & Kiddoo, for defendant.

Opinion:
Warner, Judge.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant on an open account. The parties entered into a written contract to cultivate a plantation in Early county, for the year 1868, on the terms therein expressed. The plaintiff claims that he did not get his share of the proceeds of the crop after deducting expenses,, etc. After hearing the evidence on both sides, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for $165 00. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law, and strongly and decidedly contrary to and without evidence. The Court overruled the motion for a new trial, and the defendant excepted. The jury were the proper judges of the evidence and the credit of the witnesses examined on the trial, and this Court will not interfere to control the discretion of the Court below in refusing the motion for a new trial, on the statement of facts contained in the record.
Judgment affirmed.