Opinion
November, 1905.
Order affirmed, with costs. Held, that the order appealed from granting a new trial, stating no ground therefor, we assume that it was granted on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, or the amount thereof excessive, and this court will not interfere with the discretion thus exercised by the trial justice. All concurred, except Hiscock, J., who dissented upon the ground that, in the absence of a statement to that effect in the order, it cannot be assumed that the new trial was granted because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence or for excessive damages; that the order should not, therefore, be affirmed upon the theory that it was granted upon one of those grounds, resting more or less in the discretion of the trial judge, and upon the facts in this case this court should not affirm the order because a new trial ought to have been granted upon one of said grounds.