Opinion
November 13, 1935.
January 31, 1936.
Appeals — Review — Order refusing new trial — Credibility of witnesses.
The appellate court will not interfere with the discretion of the lower court in refusing a new trial, applied for on the ground that the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses was unworthy of belief, unless the order amounts to a clear abuse of discretion.
Appeal, No. 250, Oct. T., 1935, by defendants, from order of C.P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1933, No. 7742, in case of Myer Solomon v. Joseph Goldstein et al.
Before KELLER, P.J., CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER, JAMES and RHODES, JJ. Affirmed.
Assumpsit. Before HEILIGMAN, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict for plaintiff and judgment thereon. Defendants appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal of new trial.
Harry Shapiro, for appellants.
Robert W. Archbald, Jr., for appellee.
Argued November 13, 1935.
Appellants' only ground of complaint is that the court below did not grant a new trial because the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses was unworthy of belief. It was the province of the jury to pass on the credibility of witnesses and decide disputed matters of fact. If the court below felt that the verdict rendered by the jury was against the weight of the evidence, it could grant a new trial. It was its duty to do so if it was satisfied that the verdict was obtained by false testimony or was clearly unjust. An appellate court will not interfere with the discretion of the lower court in refusing a new trial, applied for on such grounds, unless the order amounts to a clear abuse of discretion.
The learned trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses in court and who wrote the opinion of the lower court refusing a new trial, did not feel that the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses was unworthy of belief, but was of opinion that it was proper for the consideration of the jury. We find nothing in the record that convinces us that, in so deciding, the court was guilty of a clear abuse of discretion.
The judgment is affirmed.