This action was against a surety of the plaintiff’s husband upon a ne exeat bond. A verdict was returned in favor of the defendant. Thereafter the court granted the motion of the plaintiff for a new trial, and to this judgment the defend*506ant excepted. There was some evidence tending to show a breach of the bond, and it follows that the trial judge had a discretion in granting or refusing the motion; and the exercise of that discretion in favor of the movant is not, under the law, to be controlled by this court.

Judgment affirmed,.