Martin v. State
98 S.E.2d 105
Ga. Ct. App.
1957
Check Treatment
*519 Townsend, J.

This court has no discretion in the grant of a new trial, nor can it reverse the trial court merely because it may feel that the punishment inflicted, which is within legal limits, is inordinately severe. Where there is a conflict in the testimony of witnesses, their credibility is for the jury, and not this court, to decide. Accordingly the verdict of guilty, based on the testimony of two witnesses, is authorized by the evidence and cannot be set aside here. Aycock v. State, 62 Ga. App. 812 (10 S. E. 2d 84); Britt v. Davis, 53 Ga. App. 783 (187 S. E. 125). That general ground of motions for new trials, embodied in Code § 70-206, that “the verdict may be decidedly and strongly against the weight of evidence,” is discretionary with and is addressed alone to the trial judge, not the appellate court. Josey v. State, 197 Ga. 82, 93 (28 S. E. 2d 290).

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

*520 Cecil Martin testified, and the defendant stated, that they had not driven the truck over U. S. Highway 19 at the point testified to by the witnesses for the State, but that they had been in another locality and Cecil Martin had been driving.

The trial court denied a motion for new trial by the defendant filed on the general grounds only.