DIVORCE, § 108.1 — when Appellate Court not warranted in holding that trial court abused its discretion in granting new trial. Where jury in divorce proceeding found defendant wife guilty of adultery and plaintiff husband not guilty of cruelty, and thereafter defendant filed written motion for new trial on grounds that verdict was manifestly against weight of evidence; that it resulted from passion or prejudice and without due and proper consideration of law and evidence; that court erred in admission of prejudicial evidence which did not tend to prove any of issues, but only prejudiced minds of jurors against defendant; that court permitted improper cross-examination of defendant's witnesses on matters not covered by direct examination; that court allowed testimony purporting to impeach defendant's witnesses on immaterial matters, and that error was committed in improperly charging jury, and subsequently trial court merely announced that motion for new trial would be allowed, held, on plaintiff's appeal, that, from its knowledge of case and evidence presented, trial court was undoubtedly of opinion that justice would be better served by retrial of cause and that Appellate Court would not be warranted in holding that trial court abused its discretion in granting motion for new trial.
See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.
Opinion by PRESIDING JUSTICE FRIEND.
Not to be published in full. Opinion filed March 8, 1944; rehearing denied April 6, 1944.