The record-union., 1891-03-15
Filled March 5, 1911
DEPARTMENT ONE.
CHARLES TOWNSEND,
RESPONDENT


:. Respondent, No. 1s,727.
J. S. BRIGGS, Appellant.
The plaintiff brought this action to re-
cover damages in the sum of $40. .O0O
for personal injuries alleged to have been
wrongfully, wantonly and maliciously
caused by the defendant.
The case was tried by Jury, and YER
dict returned in favor of the plaintiff for
$500, on which judgment was entered.
In due time the plaintiff served notice
OF his intention to move for a new trial,
upon the following grounds: Il. In
Sufficiency of the evidence to justify the
verdict; 2. That the verdict is against
law; 3. Errors in law occurring at the
trial and excepted to by the PLAINTIFF
The notice stated that the motion would
be made upon bill of exceptions to be
thereafter settled, and such bill was
thereafter settled and fled
The court granted the motion, but upon
what ground does not appear, and the de-
fendant appeals from the order,
1t is claimed for appellant that the bill
OF exceptions shows no errors in law
committed at the trial, and contains no
sufficient specification OF the particulars
in which the evidence is alleged TO be in
sufficient to justify the verdict, and hence
that the new trial was improperly
granted.
The bill of exceptions states that the
plaintiff excepted to the verdict of the
jury upon the ground of the insufficiency
OF the evidence to justify it, and it con-
talns specifications to the effect that, as
shown by the evidence, plaintiff was
wrongfully assaulted and beaten by the
defendant; that he was then As years of
age, and up to that time in good health
and able TO earn $50 per month that the
injuries so inflicted resulted in the loss of
his left arm, in causing him great ply
steal and mental pain, and in rendering
him unable to earn his support that 1.-The
verdict of $500 returned will not compen-
safe plaintiff for the detriment proxi-
mately caused by said injury, and is not
| equivalent to the amount plaintiff will
| lose in one year as wages in earning ca
pacity alone,'' and that 1.-The amount of
the verdict $500 is wholly inadequate
and Insignificant as compensation for the
damage sustained from said iniury.n
We think the specifications sufficient.
(Du Brutz VS.. Jessup, 81 Cal. lis; Ben
nett VS.. Hobro, Y Cal. 17S.)
The evidence showed very clearly that,
without any sufficient cause, defendant
struck plaintiff on the head with mallet
several times; that plaintiff was knocked
down and fell on cutting machine; that
his left elbow joint was badly cut, and the
principal arteries, veins and nerves of the
arms severed; that he had one scalp wound
an inch and a half long, cut through to
the bone; that to save his life it was neceS-
sary to amputate his arm above the ell
bow, and that he suffered great pain both
before and after the amputation.
Under such a showing of the facts, the
court may well have thought that $500
was a grossly inadequate sum to compen-
safe the plaintiff for the injuries received,
and may have grants d the motion on that
ground. And the rule is well settled that
an order granting new trial will not be
reversed on appeal, if it can be justified
on any OF the grounds upon which the
motion was made. (Nally VS.. Mcdonald,
II Cal. 2s4; Harnettvs. G. z. r. r. Co., rs
Cal. 81; Curtiss VS. Starr Il Co., s. Cal 316.)
We are unable to see that the court
abused its discretion in granting the new
trial, and we therefore advise that the or
der be affirmed. BELCHER, c..
We concur:
FooTE, c.,
HAYNE,C.