
    WALTON v. MAGUIRE.
    Where the Court below refuses a new trial asked on the ground that the evidence does not sustain the finding and judgment, that Court acts in the exercise of a sound legal discretion, and the Supreme Court will not interfere unless there was an abuse of discretion.
    Appeal from the Twelfth District.
    Suit upon several promissory notes. Answer, a set-off. The case was sent to a Referee; who reported a finding and judgment in favor of plaintiff. Judgment being entered in accordance with the report, defendant excepted to the report, and moved to set it aside, and for a new trial, on the ground, among others, that the evidence was insufficient to justify it. Motion denied.
    Defendant appeals.
    
      James W. Coffroth and G. W. Spaulding, for Appellant, cited Bagley v. Eaton, 8 Cal. 139; 5 Id. 137.
    
      Waller & Moore and Parker & Waterman, for Respondent.
   Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. concurring.

The question in this case relates to the propriety of an order refusing a new trial, and the ground chiefly relied upon for a reversal is the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision. In making the order, the Court acted in the exercise of a sound legal discretion, and upon the evidence embodied in the record we cannot undertake to say that this discretion ivas abused. Our interference, under the circumstances, would be a departure from the rule upon which we have always acted in such cases.

There is nothing in the other point made; and the judgment is therefore affirmed.  