
    Inhabitants of Enfield vs. Leonard L. Buswell and others.
    
      New Trial.
    
    Wliere the evidence is conflicting upon points vital to tlie result, the conclusion of the jury will not he reversed unless the preponderance against the verdict is such a,s to amount to a moral certainty that the jury erred.
    Motion for new trial by plaintiffs on the ground that the ver-, diet for the defendants was against evidence.
    
      W. 3. McOrillis, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Wilson (& Woodward, for the defendants.
   Rescript.

To sustain a motion for a new trial where the question presented to the jury was purely one of fact, it is not sufficient to present a case which induces the court to believe that the verdict was erroneous. The court will not interfere unless it seems certain that injustice has been done by reason of some bias on the part of the jury, or a total misapprehension of the case upon which they have found.

"Where the evidence is conflicting upon points vital to the result the conclusion of the jury will not be reversed, unless the preponderance against the verdict, is such as to amount to a moral certainty, that the jury erred.

This cannot be the case where the testimony of the party prevailing before the jury, is corroborated to some extent by contemporaneous written evidence, as that of the defendants in the present case is by the treasurer’s receipts.

Motion overruled.  