Case ID: so2d_163/html/0525-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert E. MURRELL, Appellant, v. Susan LYNCH, Appellee.
    No. 63-614.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
    April 28, 1964.
    Rehearing Denied May 19, 1964.
    Kneale, Roberts, Kneale & Starkweather, Miami, for appellant.
    Rollo E. Karkeet, Miami, and Kenneth A. Wolis, No. Miami, for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PIOR-TON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The trial judge granted a new trial in a paternity suit. This appeal is brought pursuant to § 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The grounds assigned for the granting of the motion for new trial are (1) improper comments of defendant’s counsel in closing argument; (2) the trial of the cause went off on two related tangents which resulted in over-emphasis on these points to such a degree that there was not a fair consideration of the material issue; (3) the jury was confused by the conduct of an experiment; (4) that these errors resulted in the miscarriage of justice.

The order is affirmed under the rules stated in Cloud v. Fallís, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 494.

Affirmed.