
    Roy O. Webster vs. Dante Bracci & another.
    October 29, 1964.
    
      Charles E. Cunningham for the plaintiff.
    
      John J. C. Herlihy (Neil L. Lynch with him) for the defendants.
   Exceptions overruled. In an action of tort for negligence arising from a head-on collision of the plaintiff’s and the corporate defendant’s motor vehicles during a heavy, whirling snowstorm when only twelve feet of the roadway was available for travel and visibility was extremely poor, the judge allowed, subject to the plaintiff’s exception, the defendants’ motion for a new trial which recited that the verdicts for the plaintiff were against the evidence, the weight of the evidence, and the law. The judge’s indorsement granting the motion “[f]or the reasons set forth in the defendants’ motion” complied with the requirements of G. L. c. 231, § 128. Anti v. Boston Elev. Ry. 247 Mass. 1, 4-6. Carver-Beaver Yarn Co. Inc. v. Wolfson, 249 Mass. 257, 258-259. The considerations which should guide a judge in the disposition of a motion for a new trial and which govern our review of his action are fully set out by Qua, C. J., in Hartman v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. 323 Mass. 56, 59-61, and are applicable here. No basis for reversal appears.  