Case Name: OLE HEDLUND v. JULIUS CRESIEN
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1903-10-30
Citations: 90 Minn. 354
Docket Number: Nos. 13,584—(41)
Parties: OLE HEDLUND v. JULIUS CRESIEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 354–354

Head Matter:
OLE HEDLUND v. JULIUS CRESIEN.
October 30, 1903.
Nos. 13,584—(41).
Appeal" by defendant from an order of the district court for Polk , county, Watts, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
Affirmed.
W. B. Rowe and G. A. B. Binlayson, for appellant.
A. R. Holston and J. A. Sorley, for respondent.
Reported in 96 N. W. 1131.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an action to recover damages for an assault and battery by defendant upon plaintiff. The latter had a verdict for $8oo. Errors are assigned upon instructions of the trial court and for its failure to set aside the verdict as excessive. ,
A careful examination of the record satisfies us that the evidence am- , ply sustains the 'verdict. The instructions of the trial court went no further than to lay down the correct propositions of law applicable to the issues, and, while the verdict is large, the evidence tends to show that the injuries were severe, with consequent pain and suffering, and we cannot discover substantial grounds to indicate that the award was made through passion or prejudice on the part of the jury. We are required to hold that the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing to grant a'new trial.
Order affirmed.