The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the warranty was breached and would have authorized such a finding. One of the plaintiffs testified in effect, that the machine would rip lumber up to 4 inches in thickness, that he offered to show the defendant how to operate it so that it would do so, and that the defendant refused to permit him to demonstrate or to fix the machine so it would properly perform. This was sufficient to make a question of fact for the court to decide. The first ground of the amended motion complains of the admission of testimony of one of the plaintiffs as follows: “I have been selling that kind of machine for 25 years and seen it in operation constantly. . . In Fulton County at least a *38 dozen of these machines are operating.” The second ground complains of similar testimony of another witness to the effect that he operated a similar machine without difficulty.

The headnotes require no further discussion.

The other grounds of the motion are without merit, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.