a conflict certiorari review of the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Cohen v. Margoa, Inc., etc., 1973, 281 So.2d 406. Frances Barnett, appellant in the District Court, is now deceased and these proceedings were timely brought by Petitioner Bernard Cohen, Executor of Appellant's estate. The crucial question is whether the District Court's decision affirming a trial judge's order providing for the remittitur of $7,500 of a jury's verdict of $25,000 compensatory damages and for the remittitur of $25,000 of the same jury's verdict of $50,000 punitive damages with the alternate proviso that if the order was rejected by the plaintiff (Appellant in the District Court) the case would be retried, conflicted with the following cases: Cloud v. Fallis, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669; Price v. Jordan, Fla.App. 1959, 115 So.2d 444; Laskey v. Smith, Fla. 1970, 239 So.2d 13; Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Company, Fla. 1970, 234 So.2d 645; Stopko v. Farrington, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So.2d 28; Frazier v. Merricks, Fla.App. 1972, 271 So.2d 36, and Willard v. Bowen, Fla.App. 1974, 294 So.2d 696. It is my opinion the District Court decision conflicts with the rationale of the cited cases as hereinafter explained.

Assessing the amount of damages for malicious prosecution is peculiarly within the province of the trier of fact. Maiborne v. Kuntz, 56 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1952). Further, a motion for new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Stopko v. Farrington, 235 So.2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). No such showing is made by this record.

Here, the trial judge granted a new trial on grounds other than those heretofore recognized in Cloud v. Fallis, supra. See also Price v. Jordan, Fla.App. 1959, 115 So.2d 444; Laskey v. Smith, Fla. 1970, 239 So.2d 13; Stopko v. Farrington, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So.2d 28; Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Company, Fla. 1970, 234 So.2d 645; Frazier v. Merricks, Fla.App. 1972, 271 So.2d 36; Willard v. Bowen, Fla.App. 1974, 294 So.2d 696; Nunberg v. Brodsky, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So.2d 727. Interestingly, although the motion seeking a new trial alleged among other things that the verdict as to liability and damages was "contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence", the trial court's order granting the new trial did not do so on that basis. Instead, the trial court predicated its order on its finding that the verdict as to damages and liability was "contrary to the law" and "contrary to the evidence" and that the amount of the verdict "is based on speculation and conjecture".