Daniel v. Keen , 23 Ga. App. 105 ( 1918 )

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial in this case is not in the record. However, the bill of exceptions, duly certified, recite^ that the motion for a new trial was submitted on the general grounds only. There is evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and this court can not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.