
    Hess et ux. v. Gusdorff, Appellant.
    
      Practice, C. P. — Order granting new trial — Appeals.
    1. The appellate court will never reverse an order granting a new trial, unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion, by acting arbitrarily or under a plain mistake of law.
    2. Such an order will not be reversed although it is made without any specific reason being assigned therefor.
    Argued March 29, 1922.
    Appeal, No. 347, Jan. T., 1922, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., June T., 1917, No. 4868, granting new trial, in case of Clarence M. Hess and Mary G. Hess, his wife, and Clarence M. Hess, in his own right, v. Albert Gusdorff, trading as Penn Furniture Co.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Sadler, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Rule for new trial.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Rule absolute. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned, inter alia, was order, quoting it.
    
      John (r. Kaufman, for appellant,
    
      
      M. T. McManus, with him John Blair Moffett, for appellees.
    April 24, 1922:
   Pee Cueiam,

The statement of claim alleges that a representative of defendant called at plaintiffs’ home, and, while transacting the business of his employer, “shook his closed fist in the face of the said Mary G. Hess, thereby terrorizing and assaulting her and causing her a severe nervous shock, as a result of which, she, the said plaintiff, who was then pregnant......suffered a miscarriage, as well as a complete nervous collapse, and otherwise became sick and disabled.” A trial was had, which ended in a directed verdict for defendant. The court below granted a new trial, without assigning any specific reason. Defendant has appealed.

On appeal from an order such as the one here complained of, we never reverse unless it clearly appears the trial court abused its discretion, by acting arbitrarily or under a plain mistake of law. We cannot tell what moved the court below to grant the new trial, nor what may develop at the next one; therefore the order complained of will not be disturbed.

The appeal is dismissed.  