
    Musgrave v. Slutsky, Appellant, et al.
    
      Negligence — Verdict—New trial — Weight of evidence — Appeals.
    
    The appellate court will not reverse an order refusing defendant a new trial applied for on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, where it appears that the evidence was conflicting on the question of negligence involved, that the verdict was amply sustained by the evidence, and that the case was properly submitted to the jury by the trial judge.
    Argued April 19, 1926.
    Before Moschziskbr, O. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaefer, JJ.
    Appeal, No. 128, Jan. T., 1926, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1924, No. 4436, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Arthur T. Musgrave v. Daniel Slutsky and John English.
    Affirmed.
    Rule for new trial in case of trespass for negligence. Before Stern, J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for |5,500 as against Slutsky. New trial refused. Slutsky appealed.
    
      Error assigned was, inter alia, refusal of new trial, quoting record.
    
      S. S. Herman, for appellant.
    
      J. Morris Yeakle, for appellee.
    May 10, 1926:
   Per Curiam,

Plaintiff recovered a verdict against defendant Slut-sky for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The court below overruled a motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict, from which action Slutsky has appealed. Although in the court below appellant alleged a number of reasons for granting a new trial, the only one urged before us is to the effect that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. A reading of the testimony shows that occupants of each of the two cars involved in the collision gave distinct and conflicting accounts, one showing, the other negativing, negligence on the part of appellant; the evidence was carefully summed up by the trial judge, and submitted to the jury, who believed plaintiff’s story. The question was for the jury, and the verdict, which is amply supported by the evidence, does not indicate any abuse of power by that body; hence we cannot say the refusal of a new trial was not justified.

The judgment is affirmed.  