
    Lackey v. Lane & McCabe.
    The circuit court having opportunities, greatly superior to those enjoyed by the Supreme Court, of determining whether a verdict is against the weight of evidence, and whether a new trial should he granted, its judgment will not he reversed for refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that the verditt was against the weight of evidence, unless a very flagrant case be made out.
    Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Saint Louis county.
    
      John B. King for Appellant.
    The court of common pleas erred in overruling said motion for a new trial, for the reasons therein filed, because the jury found a verdict greatly against the weight of testimony, which motion ought to have prevailed. See page 361, section 16, Mo. Digest.
    
      T. B. Hudson for Appellees.
    
    1st. That by the evidence it is clearly shown, that the charges nnd specifications contained in the bill of items are correct, and the customary charges made by physicians and surgeons for like services in St. Louis. Then as to the correctness of the value of the services and attendance there can be no question, if the services were actually rendered. 6 Mo. Decisions, 61; 5 Mo. Decisions, 493, Mulliken v. Greer.
    
      Tl10 circuit court having opportunities enjoyed by court^oiTde-verdict is awe'ight ofevi-dsnco, and trial"si’d granted, judgment will not here-fa3ingto°gTant a new trial on thaMhTver-<*lcfc was as’st. the weight ot evidence, unless a very flagrant case be made out.
   Opinion of the Court by

Scott, Judge.

Lane and McCabe sued Lackey for medical services, before a justice of the peace, and recovered judgment, and on appeal to the court of common pleas, judgment was affirmed. The only question arising on the record, and the only com- , . ° , , plaint of the appellant, is the refusal oí the court to grant a new trial, for the reason that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. This court cannot see that the court below erred in this matter. That court has opportunities greatly superior to those enjoyed by this court, of ing whether the verdict is against the weight of testimony, and whether a new trial should be granted.

When the court below has refused a new trial, demanded simply because the verdict is against the weight of evidence, it must be a flagrant case which would justify the ° o •/ ence of this court. The difference between the amount admitted to be due, and that given by the verdict, being so small, the court was well warranted on that ground alone in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed. '  