Court Opinion

ID: 9825460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:02:41.567116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:50.553802
License: Public Domain

SAMFORD, Judge.
The principal insistence of error is the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict of the jury and to grant plaintiff a new trial.
The issues in the case were simple and fairly put to the jury. The testimony on these issues was in direct conflict. There is no evidence of prejudice, passion, or other improper influence entering into the trial; nor can it be said that the evidence is overwhelmingly the one way or the other. Where this is the case and the trial judge who heard the case had all the parties before him and observed their demeanor and manner of testifying refuses to grant the motion for a new trial, it is plainly the duty of the appellate court not to interfere in his judgment. There are so many decisions to sustain this view that citation of authority is not necessary.
On objection by defendant certain parts of a letter dated 11/7/3 addressed to plaintiff at Palmetto, Fla., and signed by defendant, were excluded, and this ruling of the court is made the basis of assignment of error No. 3. There is no cited authority to sustain this contention, and, indeed, there could be none, as the parts of the letter objected to were entirely foreign and immaterial to any issue involved in this case.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.