HAzEN Us. HENRY.
{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": "Error 10 Graarj oyd."}
{"character_count": 1057, "word_count": 195, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9578999876976013], "ccnet_perplexity": [802.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
To authorize new trial upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to evidence, it is essential that | should not only be against the weight of evidence, but that il should be so much so as, on the first blush of il, to shock our sense of justice.

 When a party offers no legal, but IS per- miued 10 introduce a mass of illegal testi- mony, and yet the verdict is against him, t is a strong reason why this court should not grant new trial,

 Plaintiff read to the jury, as e7idenc, a statement in the handwriting of defendant, without accounting for his possession of it. Held that in the absence of proof to the con- trary, the legal presumption IS that Ire ob- tained il fairly, il the course of business.

 Where, in a statement made out by de- fendant, he admis that he has funds in lis hands belonging 10 another, and the plain tiff reads such statement to the jury, the de- fendant should not 5e allowed to give i'll ev- idcuce declarations made by himself, subse- quently 10 tie time he drew up such stale- ment, denying its eorfectness.-Ailirmed.