#### HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA HOUSING PROJECT N. C. 12-1-A, Petitioner, v. DAISY T. JENKINS, Respondent.

(Filed 2 November, 1955.)

Trial §49% —

Whether the verdict should be set aside as excessive rests within the discretion of the trial court.

Appeal by petitioner from Sharp, Special Judge, May, 1955, Term, of Fobsyth.

Special proceeding under Public Works Eminent Domain Law. G.S. 40-30 et seq.

The controversy relates solely to the amount to which respondent is entitled as compensation for the property condemned by petitioner.

Upon trial in the Superior Court, the issue submitted and the jury’s answer were as follows:

“1. What was the fair market value of the real property of the respondent, Daisy T. Jenkins, described in the Petition, as of November 1, 1954, the date of the taking? Answer: $4,500.00.”

Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict. Petitioner excepted and appealed, assigning errors.

Blackwell, Blackwell & Canady for petitioner, appellant.

Buford T. Henderson for respondent, appellee.

PeR Curiam.

The evidence, considered in the light most favorable to respondent, was sufficient to support the verdict; and it was for the trial court, in its discretion, to determine whether the verdict should have been set aside as excessive. This determination was made, adversely to petitioner. Careful consideration of the remaining assignments fails to disclose any error of law deemed of sufficient prejudicial effect to warrant a new trial. Hence, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.

No error.