Appeals — Refusal of new trial — Abuse of discretion — Case for jury.
The refusal of new trial is not ground for reversing a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff in a negligence case, where there has been no abuse of discretion by the lower court, and where the appellate court is convinced that the issues involved were for the jury.
Argued March 15, 1928.
PER CURIAM, April 9, 1928:
The sole complaint here is that the court below abused its discretion by not granting a new trial on what defendant, appellant, claims to be the clear weight of the evidence in its favor. It is not necessary, and would serve no useful purpose, to state the facts or review the evidence. After reading the printed testimony, we are not convinced of error; the issues involved were for the jury and it does not appear that there was any abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial.
The judgments are affirmed.