This was an action of trespass, and there was evidence from which the jury could find that the plaintiff had title to the land, and had sustained damage to the extent of the verdict, occasioned by the defendant’s trespass. Hence thei'e was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in overruling a motion for new trial, complaining that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, and without evidence to support it.

Judgment affirmed.