The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for new trial as amended.

Mrs. Eleanor McSwain brought an action against Bibb Cigar & Candy Company, Inc., to recover for injuries and damages sustained when a truck owned by the defendant and being driven by its agent struck the rear of her automobile which she was driving westward on U.S. Highway 80 on December 29, 1955. The jury found for the plaintiff and their verdict was made the judgment of the trial court. The defendant's motion for new trial on the usual general grounds, which it later amended by adding four special grounds, was denied and it excepts.

1. Special grounds 5, 6, and 7 of the amended motion for new trial, which assign error on certain excerpts from the charge, have been carefully examined by this court and no reversible error is disclosed.

2. Special ground 4 is but an amplification of the usual general grounds and will not be considered separately.

As stated by counsel for the defendant, "The controlling question in this case is, 'Did the Bibb truck hit the McSwain car?' If this question is answered in the affirmative, then the verdict of the jury was sufficiently supported by the evidence, and there is no contention that such verdict was not otherwise supported by the evidence.

An examination of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, as must be done in considering the usual general grounds of a motion for new trial, discloses that the jury was authorized to have found the following from the evidence presented:

In a case like the one here under consideration, where the evidence is in sharp conflict and much of it was subject to being impeached if the jury so believed, the evidence must be construed in that light which will uphold the verdict of the jury, for, " 'In passing on the general grounds of a motion for new trial, this court passes not on the weight but on the sufficiency of the evidence. It is our duty to determine whether the verdict as rendered can be sustained under any reasonable view taken of the proofs submitted to the jury.' Ingram v. State, 204 Ga. 164, 184 (48 S. E. 2d 891)." Farlow v. Brown, 208 Ga. 646, 648 (68 S. E. 2d 903).

Therefore, in the present case, where the theory above shown was possible, whether it was the most probable theory or not, and was supported by the evidence, although in sharp conflict, it is this court's duty to affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed. Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.