59 Me. 94 | Me. | 1871
This case is before the law court on a motion to set aside the verdict as against evidence, on a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and on exceptions to the rulings of the presiding judge.
1. Of the motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict is against evidence. The defendant contends that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care and prudence? and that he was guilty of no'negligence; and that the verdict is clearly against the weight of the evidence on both these points. Our conclusion is, that the evidence was sufficient to bring both these questions fairly within the province of the jury to decide, and that we cannot disturb the verdict on either of these grounds. Nor do we think the damages excessive.
2. Of the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. We think this motion, also, must be overruled. In our judgment the evidence is not of such a character. as would be likely to change the result; and we see no reason' why the plaintiff might not, by the use of due diligence, have discovered it before the trial as well as afterwards.
8. Of the exceptions. The defendant contends that the presiding judge erred in submitting to the jury the question whether the plaintiff was legitimately on the defendant’s platform at the time of
Judgment on the verdict.