Warner

A verdict was rendered in this cause in favor of the plaintiff for $1,321.- The defendant moved for a new trial upon several grounds, one of which was that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. The court granted the motion without specifying the ground upon which it made the order, and from this order the plaintiff has appealed.

Upon well-established rules, the action of the court must be affirmed: Crooks v. Miller, 89 Cal. 35 , 26 Pac. 615 ; Kauffman v. Maier, 94 Cal. 269 , 18 L. R. A. 124, 29 Pac. 481 ; Domico v. Cassassa, 101 Cal. 411 , 35 Pac. 1024 ; People v. Flood, 102 Cal. 330 , 36 Pac. 663 ; Mills v. Navigation Co., 102 Cal. 357 , 36 Pac. 772 .

After the statement of the case had been settled by the judge and filed with the clerk, it was brought to the notice of *681 the court that the statement was incomplete, in that several exhibits referred to therein had not been engrossed at length, although it was recited in the statement that it contained all the material evidence taken at the trial of the action. The defendant’s attorney thereupon moved the court that the settlement and allowance of the statement be vacated, and that they be allowed to re-engross…