Hiraide

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial in a malpractice action, the complaint charging negligence, lack of care and lack of skill of the defendant in the performance of his professional duties in caring for Cho Hiráide. The answer denies the negligence, lack of care and lack of skill. The motion for a new trial was made on a number of grounds, among which was insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and that the verdict is against the law. The motion was granted upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. The sole question presented by the appellants is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to justify the verdict of the jury. Prom a careful reading of the brief of the appellants it appears that the appellants have applied the rule on appeal as the rule for the direction of the trial court on the motion for a new trial and contend that if there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict on appeal from the judgment that the trial court commits error if it grants a new trial.

Appellants cite the case of Priestly v. Stafford, 30 Cal. App. 523 [ 158 Pac. 776 ], as authority in support of his contention. This is an action…