different. Parsons testified that the last time he was on Hancock’s land “was late ’96, early ’97.” When asked if there was a push off ramp on the two pits Parsons testified, “I think there was. I can’t recollect, but manure could have gone into the pit.[A]gain, having a hard time recollecting this. I was thinking that both [pits] were able to be — would have been able to be used.” Mr. Parsons was never specifically asked, nor did he specifically testify as to the Bolivar Ready Mix lawsuit in his deposition testimony. It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine whether perjury occurred and whether an improper verdict resulted therefrom. Hoodoo of Poplar Bluff v. Bosoluke, 9 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Mo.App.1999). See also Clark v. McKeone, 234 S.W.2d 574, 576 (Mo.1950) (<HOLDING>). It is only in cases where the evidence
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial based on a 250000 award for a mental distress claim holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling motion for new trial on perjury grounds holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form