MARY FLYNN vs. JOHN A. JOHNSON.
Practice, Civil, New trial.
Questions which might have been raised at the trial of an action upon its merits cannot be presented after verdict as of right upon a motion for a new trial.
The disposition of a motion for a new trial based on contentions that the verdict was against the law, against the weight of the evidence, or against the law and the weight of the evidence, or that the damages were excessive, lies wholly within the discretion of the trial judge.
TORT for personal injuries caused by the plaintiff being struck by a falling "clothes shed" on the roof of a tenement house in Boston in which the plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant. Writ dated December 9, 1912.
In the Superior Court the case was tried before Dana, J. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500. The defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds, that the verdict was against the law, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the verdict was against the law and the weight of the evidence, that the damages were excessive, and because "there was no evidence to show knowledge or legal responsibility for knowledge of the condition of the roof, without which the jury could not find against the defendant." The motion was denied, and the defendant alleged an exception solely to the ruling denying the motion for a new trial.
The case was submitted on briefs.
R. G. Kilduff & C. S. Hill, for the defendant.
J. J. O'Connor, for the plaintiff.
BY THE COURT . Whatever questions might have been raised at the trial on the merits, cannot be presented as of right on a motion for new trial. The granting or the denial of the motion on this and the other grounds therein set forth was wholly discretionary with the trial judge.
Exceptions overruled.