Case ID: f2d_26/html/0522-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROBB, Associate Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FITZGERALD v. DODSON et al.
    Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted April 25, 1928.
    Decided April 28, 1928.
    Nos. 1372, 1373.
    1. Appeal and error <§=>977 (I) — Trial court’s action in granting or refusing new trial is not reviewable.
    Action of tbe trial court in granting or refusing a new trial is' not reviewable by tbe appellate court.
    2. Appeal and error <§=>981 — Action of trial court relative to motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence will not be disturbed, unless discretion was abused.
    Where motion for new trial is based on newly discovered evidence, action of trial court will not be disturbed, unless there has Been a manifest abuse of discretion.
    Action between Thomas J. Fitzgerald, Sr., and W. H. Dodson and another. After refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial, the party first named applies for writs of error.
    Applications denied.
    Thomas J. Fitzgerald, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
    C. P. Henry, of Washington, D. C., for respondents.
   ROBB, Associate Justice.

In these eases the application for writs of error is based on the refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial.

It is settled law in this court that the action of the trial court in granting or refusing a new trial is not reviewable. Columbia Ry. Co. v. Cruit, 20 App. D. C. 521; Price v. United States, 14 App. D. C. 391; Kelly v. Moore, 22 App. D. C. 9. Even where the motion for a new trial is based upon newly discovered evidence, the action of the trial court will not be disturbed, unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion. Mandes v. Midgett, 49 App. D. C. 139, 261 F. 1019.

It results that these applications must be denied.