
    Beal v. Stone.
    1. Bill of exceptions! NEW triai,. The action of the District Court in overruling a motion for a new trial, based on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence and instructions, will not be interfered with where the bill of exceptions does not embody such instructions ¿nd all of the evidence.
    2. New trials grounds must be stated. Grounds relied upon as the basis of a new trial must be set out in the motion therefor, or they will not be considered; and affidavits will not be received in support of the same unless thus stated.
    
      Appeal from JPottawattomie District Court.
    
    Monday, July 1.
    
      Caleb JBalckom for the appellant.
    
      L. W. Doss for the .appellee.
   Lowe, Ch. J.

An action between the parties for mutual demands. At the trial, the jury returned a verdiet of $213 for the plaintiff, whereupon the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, setting forth, as grounds therefor, that the verdict of the jury was contrary to law, against the evidence and the instructions of the court.

The overruling of this motion is the foundation of this appeal, and the same is assigned for error, here, Whether it is so, we are unable to pronounce, for tbe reasons that tbe alleged instructions are not in the record, and only a portion of tbe evidence, as tbe bill of exceptions expressly states.

At tbe bearing of the motion, tbe affidavits of two of tbe jurors were produced and read, to tbe effect that tbe return of tbe jury was a quotient verdict, so , 0 , 1 3 far as it determined tbe amount of tbe defendant’s offset. If so, this, as we have before held (Wright v. Telegraph Co., 20 Iowa, 195), would vitiate tbe verdict, and entitle tbe complaining party to a new trial. But in order to take advantage of such misconduct on tbe part of tbe jury, be must set it forth in bis motion for a new trial, according to tbe express requirements of sections 3112 and 3115 of tbe [Revision, to tbe end, we suppose, that tbe opposite party might be prepared to meet tbe complaint with counter affidavits. As no such grounds were alleged in tbe motion for a new trial, we cannot say that tbe court erred in rejecting tbe affidavits offered in support of tbe same, and we accordingly affirm.

Affirmed.  