Case Name: CHARLES J. AHRENS v. LUTHER C. ROBEY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1958-03-26
Citations: 248 N.C. 98
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHARLES J. AHRENS v. LUTHER C. ROBEY
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 248
Pages: 98–98

Head Matter:
CHARLES J. AHRENS v. LUTHER C. ROBEY
(Filed 26 March, 1958)
Appeal and Error § 46—
The discretionary ruling of the trial judge in setting aside the verdict as being contrary to the weight of the evidence is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of abuse of discretion.
Appeal by plaintiff from Craven, Special Judge, at 16 September, 1957, Regular “B” Civil Term of Meciclenbuhg.
Civil action for libel.
Issues were submitted to and answered by the jury as follows:
“1. Did the defendant write concerning the plaintiff the words in substance, as alleged in the Complaint? Answer: YES.
“2. If so, were they true? Answer: NO.
“3. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $2,000.00.”
The defendant, through counsel, moved the trial judge to set aside the verdict as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. The judge, “in his discretion,” allowed the motion and entered judgment setting the verdict aside and directing that the case be tried de novo. The plaintiff appeals.
Ralph C. Clontz, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.
Morgan, Byerly & Post and Dotson G. Palmer for defendant, ap-pellee.

Opinion:
PeR Curiam.
The discretionary ruling of the trial judge in setting aside the verdict as being contrary to the weight of the evidence is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of abuse of discretion. Here there is no evidence of such abuse. Therfore the appeal will be dismissed. Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N.C. 808, 161 S.E. 686; In re Will of Hargrove, 207 N.C. 280, 176 S.E. 752; Hawley v. Powell, 222 N.C. 713, 24 S.E. 2d 523; Ward v. Cruse, 234 N.C. 388, 67 S.E. 2d 257; Williams v. Stumpf, 243 N.C. 434, 90 S.E. 2d 688.
Appeal Dismissed.