History
  • No items yet
midpage
Weddle v. Stark
10 Cal. 301
Cal.
1858
Check Treatment
Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Terry, C. J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.

The motion for the new trial in this case was based upon two grounds-—insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, and error in law occurring at the trial, and excepted to by the defendants. The motion was granted, but it does not appear upon what ground. It may have been on the first; and, considering this to be the fact, there was no such abuse of discretion on the part of the County Court as to justify any interference with its order. The evidence is conflicting, and in such cases the granting or refusing of a new trial rests peculiarly in the discretion of the Court below. Had the motion been denied, our decision would have been the same.

Order affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Weddle v. Stark
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 1, 1858
Citation: 10 Cal. 301
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.