Case ID: cal_49/html/0585-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court, McKinstry, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 4,347.]
    A. P. MARBLE v. NAHUM FAY and FRED. WILKENSON.
    Sighing and Eibing Bild of Exceptions.—If the bill of exceptions is signed by the Judge, and filed with the Clerk within thirty days after the trial, it is a compliance with the statute, even if the filing precedes the .signing by the Judge.
    Gbanting New Tbiab.—If there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the Appellate Court will not disturb an order of the Court below granting a new trial, on the ground that the evidence does not justify the verdict.
    Appeal from the District Court, Eighth Judicial District, County of Humboldt.
    Action to recover damages for an alleged libel. The plaintiff obtained the verdict of a jury for $1,500 on the 30th day of September, 1873. The defendants moved for a new trial, and the Court below granted a new trial for several reasons, and among the number, that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. The plaintiff appealed from the order.
    The other facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Buck & Chamberlain, for the Appellant.
    
      J. J. De Haven, James Hanna, and G. W. Tompkins, for the Respondents.
   By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

1. Appellant asserts that when the motion for a new trial was granted by the District Judge, no bill of exceptions was on file.

The endorsement on the bill of exceptions in the records is: “Bill of exceptions. Filed for presentation to the Judge of said Court, this 21st day of October, 1873.” (Signed by the Clerk.)

The Judge’s certificate to the bill: “I do hereby certify .that the foregoing statement and bill of exceptions is true and correct, and is allowed. October 27, 1873.” (Signed.)

It is claimed that this Court cannot consider the bill, because it was not again endorsed “filed,” as of a date subsequent to that of the Judge’s certificate. The bill of exceptions was “signed by the Judge” and filed “with the Clerk,” and the signing and filing were within thirty days after the trial. This was a substantial compliance with the statute.

2. When a new trial is granted by the District Court, on the ground that the evidence does not justify the verdict, we do not reverse the order where, as in this case, there is a substantial conflict in the evidence.

Order affirmed.

Neither Mr. Chief Justice Wallace nor Mr. Justice Niles expressed an opinion.