Case Name: O'BRIEN v. BRADY
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1863
Citations: 23 Cal. 243
Docket Number: 
Parties: O’BRIEN v. BRADY.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 243–244

Head Matter:
O’BRIEN v. BRADY.
When the motion for a new trial is based upon newly-discovered evidence, or that the verdict is against evidence, an enlarged discretion is vested in the Court below; and the Supreme Court will rarely interfere with the action of the Court below, in granting a new trial.
When a new trial is granted by the Court below, entirely upon alleged errors of law, the Supreme Court will review the action of the Court below, as in other cases.
Appeal from the District Court, Tenth Judicial District, Yuba County.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Henry K. Mitchell, for Appellant.
Rowe & Goodwin, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Crocker, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court—Norton, J. concurring.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. The grounds of the motion for a new trial were, newly-discovered evidence, insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, and that the verdict is contrary to law and the instructions of the Court. The appellant contends that the affidavits of newly-discovered evidence do not make out such a case as entitles the defendant to a new trial. Where the motion is founded upon newly-discovered evidence, or that the verdict is against the evidence, an enlarged discretion is vested in the Court below in the granting of new trials; and this Court will rarely interfere with them action in granting the motion on such grounds. This case comes within this rule, and we do not find any abuse of this discretion to justify a reversal of the order. Where the motion for a new trial is founded entirely upon alleged errors of law, in the proceedings of the Court below, and the order for a new trial is granted solely upon that ground, this Court will review such action of the Court, as in other cases, where questions of law and not matters of mere discretion are involved. This case, however, does not come within this exception to the general rule.
The order is affirmed.