
    Weiss v. London Guarantee and Accident Co., Ltd., Appellant.
    
      Appeals — New tHal — Error of law — Abuse of discretion.
    
    1. An order granting a new trial will be affirmed on appeal, where the record does not demonstrate clear error of law or abuse of discretion on the part of the court below.
    Argued December 1, 1924.
    Appeal, No. 104, Jan. T., 1925, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1921, No. 6404, refusing new trial, in case of William and Lena Weiss v. London Guarantee and Accident Company, Ltd.,
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Sadler and Schaeeer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Rule for new trial. Before McDevitt, J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Rule absolute. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned was order, quoting record.
    Fm. W. Smithers, for appellant.
    
      William T. Oonnor, with Mm John R. K. Scott, for appellees.
    January 5, 1925:
   Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. Since the record does not demonstrate clear error of law or abuse of discretion on the part of the court below in making the order assigned as error, the assignment must be overruled: Class & Nachod Brewing Co. v. Giacobello, 277 Pa. 530; Republic Mortgage Co. v. Irwin et al., 278 Pa. 124; Babbitt v. Jackson, 279 Pa. 480.

The order appealed from is affirmed.  