
    DAGGETT v. VANDERSLICE.
    No. 9541;
    March 18, 1887.
    13 Pac. 402.
    Bailment — Action Against Bailee — New Trial.—Where an action was brought to recover the value of certain goods left with a defendant for safekeeping, and the court rendered a judgment in favor of defendant, and afterward granted the plaintiff a new trial, held, upon the facts of the case, that there was no such abuse of the discretion vested in the trial court as would warrant a reversal of the order.
    APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco.
    This action was brought to recover the value of certain silverware deposited by the plaintiff with defendant in the year 1872, at his store in San Francisco, for her own personal accommodation, and without any reward to be paid therefor. In 1883 she made a demand for the same, when defendant discovered that all of the ware except one piece had been surreptitiously abstracted and taken from his possession, by some unknown person, without his knowledge or consent, and against his will. The goods had been purchased of defendant, who was a dealer in silverware and jewelry, and presented to the plaintiff, who requested that they might be placed in showcases in the store, and in which defendant did place them, and keep them for more than four years. Afterward they were removed from the showcases, and placed in the storeroom of the defendant, at his own instance, for the purpose of making room in the case for his own goods, and without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff. The chief question was whether the defendant exercised the care required of him under the circumstances for the preservation of the goods. 'The court decided in favor of the defendant, and afterward, on motion of plaintiff, granted a new trial. And from this order defendant appealed.
    S. F. Gordon & Young for Vanderslice, appellant; Byrne & Cross, for Daggett, respondent.
   FOOTE, C.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. The action was instituted to recover from Vanderslice, the defendant, the value of some silverware left with him for safekeeping. Judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff then moved for a new trial, which was granted, and from the order made therein this appeal is prosecuted. We perceive no such abuse of the discretion vested in the trial court as would warrant a reversal of the order made in the premises, and in our opinion it should be affirmed.

We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Searls, C.

By the COURT.—Por the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the order is affirmed.  