4. When the evidence was conflicting as to the soundness of the slave, at the time of the sale, and there was evidence to sustain the verdict, this Court will not, according to its repeated rulings, control the discretion of the Court below, in refusing to grant a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. McAfee vs. Mulkey.....
... 115 5. In this case it is by no means clear, from the evidence what the proper verdict should be, and as the Court below has granted a new trial, we do not think he has abused his discretion, and we affirm the judgment. Carrugi vs. The Atlantic Fire Insurance Company..... 135 6. Although the Court may give a wrong reason for its judgment, still, if the judgment is right, this Court will not reverse it. Bowdre vs. Macon & Brunswick Railroad Company..........
7. When an action was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants, to recover the value of sundry bags of Phoenix Guano, and the defendant plead that the guano was not a merchantable article, and not reasonably suited to the use for which it was purchased and worthless as a fertilizer, and the jury, on the trial of the case, found a verdict for the defendant: Held, that this Court will not control the discretion of the Court below in refusing to grant a new trial, when there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the verdict, and no rule of law was violated in allowing the evidence to go to the jury, or in the charge of the Court. Wilcox & Co. vs. Strong...
8. As there was no error alleged to the charge of the Court, and the verdict of the jury was right, under the law and the facts of the case, as shown by the record, the motion for new trial was properly overruled. Howser vs. Evans.......
9. There ought to be a new trial in this case, in which these principles shall be applied, leaving the administrator to show, if he can, that there are subsisting claims against the estate of higher dignity than Mrs. Davis' claims, which are entitled to the fund in hand, in which case Mrs. Davis is only entitled to what remains, after the settlement of said claims, in the due course of administration. Davis vs. Bayley et al...... 181 10. When the Judge who tried a cause has died, or is out of office, and a motion is made for a new trial, the Judge to whom the application is made, is required, by the rules of Court, to ascertain the facts by the
best means at his command. But this does not require
him to re-examine the witnesses, or to hear oral testi-
mony as to what transpired at the trial. The party
moving should present, in writing, a brief of the testi-
mony and the history of the trial, properly verified,
and this Court will not overrule the Judge below, in
refusing to take up the time of the country in an ex-
amination of the witnesses, to make up a history of
the trial and a brief of the testimony. McKendre vs.
Sikes......
11. When a case had been brought up to this Court by
writ of error which was dismissed without a hearing,
upon the merits of the case, and the judgment of the
Court below was affirmed; and a motion was made
for a new trial in the case, in the Court below, with-
ont including in the motion the grounds upon which
the new trial was sought: Held, that there was no
error in the Court below in overruling the motion for
a new trial in the case, as the same was presented.
Rooney vs. Grant & Company.....
....... 191
12. If there be evidence to support a verdict, and the
presiding Judge refuses a new trial, and there be no
error of law, this Court, although it may not be satis-
fied with the verdict, will not reverse the decision of
the Court below. McBurney vs. Hollingsworth......... 197
13. This Court will more reluctantly interfere with the
discretion of the Court below, in granting a new trial,
when the plaintiff, the only witness in the case, states,
that on a former trial thereof, he swore that there was
no negligence, either in New or Jones, who were with
him as employees of the road, when he was hurt; but
who stated on the last trial, that he was injured by the
carelessness of Mr. New and Mr. Jones, without giving
any explanation as to the conflicting statements made
by him, in relation to that material point in the case,
on the different trials thereof. Thomas vs. The Geor-
gia Railroad and Banking Company............
14. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support
the verdict, and the alleged newly discovered evidence
is merely cumulative, and to the same point, as the
evidence introduced by the defendant on the former
trial in support of his general character. Lynes vs.
Reid........
15. When there is a plea to the jurisdiction of the Court,
and a trial and verdict, and the defendant complains
that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, he cannot,
for that reason, move to set aside the judgment. He
must move for a new trial, in the manner provided by
law. McCrary et al. vs. Perry....
16. New trial does not necessarily follow from a verdict
being contrary to the charge of the Court. White vs.
Lee
17. When a suit was brought in 1861 against a princi-
pal and security, and the security had a good defense,
but by reason of his attorney having gone into the
army, and by reason of the principal having also
gone into the army, the said security rested under the
belief that the cause would not be tried, and judgment
was, nevertheless, taken without the knowledge of the
security: Held, that a bill in equity for a new trial,
filed within twelve months after the adoption of the
Constitution of 1868, and setting up the foregoing
facts was not demurrable. Crawford vs. Cantrell...... 284
18. A charge of the Court that does not harm the party
complaining of it, is not a ground for a new trial, even
though the charge be wrong. Dever vs. Akin......... 423
19. Where there is evidence in the record to support
the verdict, and the Judge below has refused a new
trial, this Court will not control the discretion of the
Court below, there being no rule of law violated on the
trial, or in the verdict. Picquet vs. Gibbs............... 455
20. Though the verdict be right under the evidence, if
the Court improperly refused a continuance, and ad-
mitted illegal evidence against the accused, a new trial
will be granted. (R.) Frain vs. The State........ 529
21. If a prisoner is forced to trial when too sick to have
use of his faculties, a new trial will be granted. (R.)
Ibid.
22. When there is some evidence to sustain a verdict,
and the Court below has refused a new trial, and no
rule of law has been violated, this Court will not re-
verse the judgment. Perry vs. Houseley........
23. Newly discovered evidence upon a point principally
controverted on the first trial, and upon which the
party moving for a new trial introduced evidence, is
cumulative only, and not a good ground for a new
trial. Ibid.
24. Where the verdict is wrong as to any of the joint
defendants, and the Judge of the Superior Court is
dissatisfied with his own rulings on the trial, and has
granted a new trial, this Court will not interfere with
his discretion, though the verdict might have been
sustained in the discretion of the Court, as to part of
defendants. Cross vs. Cross....
The failure to join, as plaintiff, in a suit, a joint con-
tractor, who, as appears by the declaration, has no real
interest as such plaintiff, is not a ground for arresting
a judgment. Eagle M. Co. vs. Wise.......
See Parties to Actions.
When the City of Savannah and the Central Railroad and
Southwestern Railroad Companies entered into a con-
tract by which the said city transferred to said rail-
road companies 12,383 shares of stock in the Atlantic.
and Gulf Railroad, 307 shares in the Montgomery
and West Point Railroad, 424 shares in the Savannah
and Augusta Railroad, and 1 share in the Southwest-
ern Railroad, and the Mayor of the City of Savannah
was a stockholder in the Central Railroad, and the
said city one of the original corporators in said Cen-
tral Railroad: Held, that even if the railroad charters
are not public laws which all are bound to notice, the
city of Savannah is charged with notice of the powers
of the Central and Southwestern Railroad and cannot
stand upon the footing of an innocent actor without
notice. Central Railroad and Banking Company et
al., vs. Collins et al.
See Agents and Agency, 1, 2, 3, or Insurance.
See Arbitration, 1.
See Demand of Possession.
See Equity, 1, 2, 6, 7.
See Lien, 3, 6.
NOTICE TO QUIT. See Demand of Possession.
1. In 1864, the holder of a promissory note, made in
1860, at the demand of the security, gave up the note
and took from the principal a new note, with other
security, which last note was to be paid in Confederate
money: Held, that this was a new contract, and the
amount due thereon is to be ascertained under the
Ordinance of 1865, relating to contracts made during
the war. Horne et. al., vs. Young et. al.,................ 193
2. D. was indebted to F. for slaves bought of him, and
F. was indebted to P. for land, and by mutual agree-
ment of the three, D. gave his note to T., the amount
of the several debts being the same. This is a nova-
tion. The debt from D. to F. and from F. to T. are
at an end by the new contract between D. and F., and
the consideration of this contract is, on the part of T.,
the satisfaction of his debt on F., and on the part of
D. the satisfaction of his debt to F. Dever vs. Akin 423
3. A held a note on two as joint promisors, which note
was given for slaves, and in full discharge and satis-
faction of said note A. took a note for the same amount
on one of said principals, and a third party, as his
security. This was a novation, the original debt ceased
to exist, and the consideration of the new note was
not slaves, but the satisfaction of the first note. Gres-
ham vs. Morrow.. ...
1. The Justices of the Peace of the county, upon the
opinion of twelve freeholders of the county, have no
jurisdiction to abate a nuisance in a town or city, un-
der the government of a Mayor, Intendant, Alder-
men, Wardens, or a Common Council, or Commis-
sioners. The power to abate such nuisance is vested,
by the Code, in the city government alone, and not
in the Justices of the Peace. The South Carolina
Railroad et. al., vs. Ells et. al.,.....
2. In case the Justices of the Peace are proceeding with-
out jurisdiction to hear and determine such an issue,
in a town or city, under the government of the officers
above mentioned, a writ of prohibition is the proper
remedy to restrain them. Ibid.
OATH. See Arbitration, 2.
See Charge of the Court, 2.
ORDER OF ARGUMENT. See Practice, 3.
|