1. The court did not err in failing to give the requested instructions to the jury, as. complained of in the first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, as such instructions were not authorized by evidence.

2. The remaining ground of the amendment .to the motion for a new trial is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. That evidence ap*650pears to be cumulative and impeaching in its nature, and, moreover, was met by a counter-showing. It does not appear that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling this ground of the motion.

3. The verdict was strongly supported by evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.