Case Name: Thomas Starke against Jeremiah Cockerd
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1818-05
Citations: 2 Mill 337
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Starke against Jeremiah Cockerd.
Judges: Grimk'e, Bay, Colcock, Gantt, Johnson, and Cheves, J. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 337–338

Head Matter:
Thomas Starke against Jeremiah Cockerd.
In case deIfeld¿"f.°reRtive to which there is “myio?edS?rb the verdict, unevidence,
This was an action for money had and received, to recover from the defendant 150 dollars, • # which it was alleged he had improperly obtained from a stake holder, with whom it had been de- ' posited, to be paid over according to the event of a horse race made between the parlies. There were several witnesses sworn on both sides, and several points of law made in the progress of the cause. The case, however, has ultimately resolved itself into the single question, whether there was a precise hour fixed at which, the race should be run ? If there was, plaintiff had made default in not being ready at the time, and the money was properly paid over to the defendant. If there was not, then the plaintiff had the whole day to run, and was entitled to recover the money back. There was considerable difference of opinion among the witnesses on that point, although their testimony was not directly contradictory. The case was tried before Mr. Justice JYott, at Winnsborough, when it was submitted to the Jury upon the evidence, who found a verdict for the plaintiff A motion was now made for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Nott.
There does not appear to be any reasonable ground for a new trial in this case. It presented ° a single question of fact, which was proper for consideration of the Jury, and the Court will not set aside a verdict unless there appears a great preponderance of evidence against it. In this instance that does not appear to be the case. The motion must therefore be refused.
Grimk'e, Bay, Colcock, Gantt, Johnson, and Cheves, J. concurred.