Opinion
March 2, 1931.
March 13, 1931.
Practice C.P. — New trial — Discretion of trial court — Superior Court.
The Superior Court will not interfere with a lower court's exercise of discretion in the granting of a new trial unless the record contains a definite judicial statement that the order rests on a reason given, which to the exclusion of all else, controls the decision.
Appeal No. 30, February T., 1931, by plaintiff from decree of C.P., Lackawanna County, March T., 1929, No. 716, in the case of Hill Silk Corporation v. Victoria Silk Company.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE and DREW, JJ. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover the value of certain silk. Before LEACH, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,260.08. The court subsequently granted defendant's motion for a new trial. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was the order of the court.
L.H. Simons, for appellant.
Russell J. O'Malley of O'Malley O'Malley, for appellee.
Argued March 2, 1931.
The plaintiff shipped certain silk to the defendant company who was engaged in the business of throwing silk. The place in which the silk was stored was broken in and the silk stolen. The present suit is to recover the value of it. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in the care it exercised over the property committed to it. The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount claimed. The court granted a new trial and from this action, the plaintiff has appealed.
The trial judge was not satisfied with the way the case was tried. He gives three reasons for granting a new trial: One is that he questions whether the determination of the value of the goods was properly brought to the attention of the jury. A reading of the records shows that the minds of the jury were not clear as to this matter. The questions put by them to the court showed that they were confused and that confusion apparently was not removed by the further instructions of the court. Evidently, the court was of the opinion that justice required that a new trial be granted. We will not interfere with the purpose of the lower court to have a better trial of the matters involved. Moreover, the lower court does not state that the reasons given alone moved it to grant the new trial. The rule covering appeals from the granting of new trials is, that unless the record contains a definite judicial statement that the order in question rests on the reasons given, which, to the exclusion of all else, controlled the decision, the appellate court will not interfere with the lower court's exercise of discretion: Lawrence v. Gillespie, 300 Pa. 584.
The order is affirmed.