Bishop v. State

1. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial are without merit, since there was direct evidence, which the jury found to be credible, sufficient to authorize the verdict. .

2. In the 4th and 5th grounds it is complained that the “verdict is decidedly contrary to the evidence,” and “is not supported by the evidence,” for the reason that only one witness testified that he bought whisky from the defendant, and that witness “impeached his own testimony;” that this witness testified “in the next ease called for trial, the same day and the same afternoon,” that he had previously sworn…