Court Opinion

ID: 5617378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 04:22:52.955745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:17.530499
License: Public Domain

Broyles, C. J.
1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial contained but one ground, to wit, that the court erred in refusing the defendant’s motion to direct a verdict in his favor. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court the refusal to direct a verdict is never error.
2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth,: JJ., eoneur.

B. B. Marlin, J. H. Fletcher, for plaintiff in error.
B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general,' B. B. Arnold, E. C. Hill, contra.