Court Opinion

ID: 5610402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 03:57:47.155832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:05.405283
License: Public Domain

Broyles, P. J.
1. The court did not err in failing to give the requested instructions to the jury, as. complained of in the first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, as such instructions were not authorized by evidence.
2. The remaining ground of the amendment .to the motion for a new trial is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. That evidence ap*650pears to be cumulative and impeaching in its nature, and, moreover, was met by a counter-showing. It does not appear that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling this ground of the motion.
Decided January 22, 1918.
Action for money had and received; from Calhoun superior court — Judge Harrell. July 21, 1917.
Smith & Miller, for plaintiff in error. B. W. Fortson, contra.
3. The verdict was strongly supported by evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworih and' Harwell, JJ., concur.