" (Emphasis supplied.) In Gough v. Gough, 238 Ga. 695 ( 235 S.E.2d 9) (1977), the jury awarded the husband half the income from certain jointly held property and $12,000 formerly held in an account in the wife's name as trustee for her husband but later put into a savings account in her name. She appealed the $12,000 award to her husband but this court affirmed on the basis that the jury was attempting to separate the property of the husband from the joint funds of the parties.

It is well established that the court may construe a verdict in the light of the pleadings and the evidence adduced at trial in order to conform to the reasonable intendment of the jury. See Turley v. Turley, 244 Ga. 808 ( 262 S.E.2d 112) (1979); Gough v. Gough, 238 Ga. 695 (2) ( 235 S.E.2d 9) (1977). The judge in the case at bar had presided at the trial of the divorce and had the pleadings before him when he construed the jury's verdict and ruled against Mr. Mitchell's claim for the tractor attachments. It is also well established that the appealing party has the burden of proving error by the record and that in the absence of anything to the contrary, this court should presume that a judge's ruling was authorized by the pleadings, admissions made by the parties, or by the evidence at trial.

There is a presumption in favor of the validity of verdicts. Gough v. Gough, 238 Ga. 695, 696 ( 235 S.E.2d 9) (1977); Code Ann. § 110-105. And "after rendition of a verdict, all the evidence and every presumption and inference arising therefrom, must be construed most favorably towards upholding the verdict" Gilman Paper Co. v. James, 235 Ga. 348, 350 ( 219 S.E.2d 447) (1975).

Verdicts will be construed in favor of legality. See Gough v. Gough, 238 Ga. 695 ( 235 S.E.2d 9); Herman v. Boyer, 154 Ga. App. 617 ( 269 S.E.2d 107). It may be presumed that, although the amount of the defaulted note plus interest was the amount the jury found to be the only "actual" damages incurred by Johnson, this damage was found by them to be caused directly or in part by the defendants' fraud in misleading Johnson into giving the note. Therefore, the sum may be collected on either account: on account of Fullerton's contract (note) default, or on account of the bank's and Fullerton's fraud. What cannot be collected upon one account may be collected upon the other, until the actual damages of $162,303.03 are satisfied.

A matter which is developed by the evidence rather than appearing upon the face of the record or pleadings does not fall within the orbit of a motion to set aside. In this regard see Prudential Timber c. Co. v. Collins, 155 Ga. App. 492 (1) ( 271 S.E.2d 43); Wiley v. Wiley, 233 Ga. 824, 826 (2) ( 213 S.E.2d 682); Gough v. Gough, 238 Ga. 695, 697 (4) ( 235 S.E.2d 9). However, at that point in time (November 29, 1982) the denial of the motion was not a final appealable judgment since the counterclaim was still pending.

3. Likewise, a motion to set aside "will not be granted where matters upon which it is predicated must be developed by evidence." Wiley v. Wiley, 233 Ga. 824, 826 (2) ( 213 S.E.2d 682) (1975); Gough v. Gough, 238 Ga. 695, 697 (4) ( 235 S.E.2d 9) (1977). Glenn's motion to reconsider and set aside the judgment was used as a means to bring additional affidavits before the court so as to gain a reversal based on "new evidence," and was not proper under Code Ann. § 81A-160 (d).

We find no merit to these enumerations. See Gough v. Gough, 238 Ga. 695 (2) ( 235 S.E.2d 9); Lingerfelt v. Hufstetler, 137 Ga. App. 723, 724 ( 224 S.E.2d 827). 2.

See Gunn v. State, 227 Ga. 786 (3) ( 183 S.E.2d 389). This is particularly true when the matter upon which the motion is predicated must be developed by evidence. See Wiley v. Wiley, 233 Ga. 824 (2) ( 213 S.E.2d 682); Gough v. Gough, 238 Ga. 695 (4) ( 235 S.E.2d 9). Judgment reversed. Shulman and Banke, JJ., concur.

As a corollary to this proposition, courts will construe a general verdict in light of the instructions given to the jury. Elliot v. Ferguson, 158 Conn. 553, 555, 264 A.2d 556, 557 (1969); Gough v. Gough, 238 Ga. 695, 696-97, 235 S.E.2d 9, 10 (1977); Murphy v. General Motors Corp., 55 A.D.2d 486, 489, 391 N.Y.S.2d 24, 26 (1977); Fjerstad v. Sioux Valley Hospital, 291 N.W.2d 786, 788 (S.D. 1980). Here, the court failed to instruct the jury on the law of conversion.