Court Opinion

ID: 9576277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:22:32.663865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:15.087215
License: Public Domain

SHILLINGLAW, Justice (dissenting). We reaffirmed in State ex rel. Gallegos v. Macpherson, 63 N.M. 133, 314 P.2d 891, that the trial court had jurisdiction: “We pointed out in Elsea v. Broome Furniture Company, 47 N.M. 356, 143 P.2d 572, a workmen’s compensation case, that a new trial is a matter within the court’s discretion. Further, our decision here is controlled by Battersby v. Macpherson, Jr., No. 6212, in which the circumstances were almost identical with those of the instant case. There, the relator sought by writ of prohibition to restrain the district judge from granting a new trial in a workmen’s compensation action on the same grounds, lack of jurisdiction, under the act, as raised in this case. We sustained a motion to dismiss. Under these facts, where prohibition will not lie, mandamus will not lie.” It has long been established in this jurisdiction that a trial court’s discretion will only be reviewed when there is a clear abuse of that discretion. State ex rel. Gallegos v. Macpherson, supra; Cienfuegos v. Pacheco, 56 N.M. 667, 248 P.2d 664. The record here discloses a sincere and conscientious attempt by Judge Macpherson to dispose of the serious problems confronting him in the trial of this case. I cannot agree that he, clearly abused his discretion in doing so. Accordingly, I dissent.