Menne

This is an action brought to recover damages against the defendants for the malicious prosecution of plaintiff on a charge of petit theft, upon the trial of which a jury found the defendant not guilty. This action for damages for malicious prosecution was filed as a result thereof, and a jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $2,500.

Thereafter the defendants moved for a new trial on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence to support the verdict, excessive damages and errors of law occurring at the trial. The trial court granted a new trial and plaintiff is appealing from that order.

Mr. Justice Van Fleet, in the case of Harrison v. Sutter Street Ry. Co., 116 Cal. 156 [ 47 Pac. 1019, 1020 ], so clearly expresses the power and scope of an appellate court on a motion for a new trial, that we quote the following:

Respondents, in justifying the new trial, point to errors of the court in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and contend also the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict against the corporate defendants or defendant George P. Friermuth, in that there was no evidence in the record to show by what authority, if any, defendant Greer acted…