Erickson

—Action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligent operation of an automobile by defendant H. H. Grady.

The case was tried before a jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendants. A motion for a new trial was made by plaintiff, based upon the following statutory grounds: “1. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict; 2. That said' verdict is against law; 3. Errors in law occurring at the trial and excepted to by plaintiff. ’ ’

The court granted -the motion for a new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. From this order, the defendant H. H. Grady alone prosecutes this appeal.

It is clear under all the decisions that the granting or refusing of a new trial, where the ground of the motion is insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, rests very largely in the discretion of the trial court, and every presumption is indulged in support of the action of the court in passing upon the motion.

The court’s discretion in granting a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence will not be deemed to have been abused, unless a…