Arnold v. Stevens

If the court erred in the admission of certain alleged irrelevant and immaterial evidence, it was not of such character as to require the grant of a new trial.

The court did not err in merely failing to instruct the jury as indicated in one of the grounds of the motion for new trial.

There was sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict, and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.