
    WALTER FALEY v. J. M. LEARN.
    
    March 28, 1918.
    No. 20,766.
    New trial.
    Action for the price of goods sold. Verdict for defendant. The trial court granted a new trial solely on the ground of error in the charge to the jury. Held: In limiting the ground for a new trial to errors in law, the trial court in effect approved the verdict. The claim of accident or surprise was addressed to the discretion of the court, and it would not have been error to refuse a new trial on that ground. As the charge was entirely free from criticism and the evidence supported the verdict, the order appealed from was reversed. [Reporter.]
    Action in the district court for Chippewa county to recover $425.45 for goods sold and delivered. The answer was a general denial. The case was tried before Daly, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for defendant. From an order granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
    Reversed.
    
      Raymond H. Hart, for appellant.
    
      C. D. Bensel, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 166 N. W. 1067.
    
   Per Curiam.

A new trial was granted in this cause, as stated in the memorandum attached to the order, exclusively on the ground of error in the charge of the court to the jury. We discover no such error. The instructions of the court fully stated the issues in the case, and the rules of law applicable thereto, and are entirely free from criticism. And, aside from the fact .that there was no exception to the charge in the respect deemed erroneous, the only error we find in the record is the conclusion of the learned trial court that the issues in the case were not properly submitted to the jury.

The evidence presented an issue of fact upon the principal question in the case. In limiting the grounds for a new trial to errors in law the trial court in effect approved the verdict, and the evidence is not of a character to justify interference by this court. The claim of accident and surprise was addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and the refusal of a new trial on that ground would not have been error.

A further discussion of the ease would serve no useful purpose. The evidence supports the verdict, there were no errors justifying a new trial, and the order appealed from must be and is reversed.  