
    Daniel McAllister vs. Charles Burrill.
    This court will not revise the decision of the superior court in refusing to grant a new trial on objection first made by the defendant after verdict for the plaintiff that the declaration shows the verdict to be against law and public policy.
    Contract. The declaration alleged in substance that by the defendant’s request the plaintiff procured thirty men for the defendant, to be enlisted into the military service of the United States, for whom the defendant agreed to pay him one hundred and twenty-five dollars each; and the defendant received said men, and enlisted them upon the quota of Brookline, but refused to pay for them. The action was tried in the superior court, before Lord, J., and a verdict returned for the plaintiff for two thousand eight hundred and seven dollars and forty-five cents. Before judgment, the defendant moved that the verdict be set aside as against law and contrary to public policy, and asked the court to rule so on inspection of the declaration. No objection was made at the trial for the above cause, or to any ruling of the court. The motion was overruled, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      
      N. B. Bryant, for the defendant.
    
      J. W. Richardson & J. M. Way, for the plaintiff.
   Chapman, J.

1. The motion to set aside the verdict was addressed to the discretion of the court. Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 6. Therefore no exception can be taken to the decision.

2. The decision sought for would be in effect an arrest of judgment. As the alleged defect was apparent on the face of the declaration, and no objection was taken before verdict, the motion was made too late. Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 79.

Exceptions overruled 
      
       See Combs v. Scott, 12 Allen, 493.
     