
    BRANGE, Respondent, v. BOWEN, Appellant.
    (No. 4,073.)
    (Submitted December 13, 1919.
    Decided January 2, 1920.)
    [186 Pac. 680.]
    
      Trial Practice — Reopening Case — New Trial — Insufficiency of Evidence — Discretion—Appeal and Error.
    
    1. A motion to reopen a case after closing of the testimony and settlement of the instructions, for the purpose of offering a writing in evidence, and one for a new trial upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, were addressed to the sound, legal discretion of the trial court, its orders upon which cannot be disturbed on appeal except for clear abuse of such discretion.
    
      
      Appeal from District Court of Granite County; Geo. B. Winston, Judge.
    
    Action by Charles Brange against D. T. Bowen. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals from it and an order denying him a new trial.
    Affirmed.
    
      Mr. D. M. Durfee, for Appellant, submitted a brief.
    
      Mr. Lester H. Loble, for Respondent, submitted a brief and argued the cause orally.
   MR. JUSTICE HOLLOWAY

delivered the opinion of the court.

The evidence in this case is in sharp conflict. After the testimony was closed and the instructions were settled, defendant moved the court to reopen the case that a document might be offered in evidence. The motion was denied. After a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff, defendant moved for a new trial upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. That motion also was denied.

In each instance the motion was addressed to the sound, legal discretion of the trial court, and its order thereon will not be disturbed unless there was a clear abuse of discretion. (Jones v. Shannon, 55 Mont. 225, 175 Pac. 882; Cole v. Helena Light & Ry. Co., 49 Mont. 443, 143 Pac. 974.)

The record fails to disclose that any error was committed, and the judgment and order are, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Brantly and Associate Justices Hurly, Matthews and Cooper concur.  