
    Wilson v. Hill, Appellant.
    
      Appeals — Review—New trial — Abuse of discretion.
    
    An order refusing a new trial applied for on the ground that the verdict was excessive, will be affirmed on appeal, where the appellate court, after reading the evidence, is convinced there has been no reversible error, by reason of abuse of discretion.
    Argued April 20, 1926.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, "Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and SOHAEEBR, JJ.
    Appeal, No. 174, Jan. T., 1926, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1924, No. 447, refusing new trial, in case of Silas E. Wilson v. Richard Hill.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass for personal injuries. Before Stern, J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Motion for new trial refused. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was order, quoting record.
    
      F. Carroll Fow, for appellant.
    
      Robert M. Bernstein, with Mm Thomas E. Brehoney, for appellee.
    May 10, 1926:
   Per Curiam,

Plaintiff was seriously injured through negligence of defendant; he recovered a verdict for $5,000, on which, after its reduction to $4,000, the court below entered judgment. Defendant has appealed and contends only that the verdict is so excessive that we should reverse the court below for not granting a new trial. After reading the evidence on the question involved, we are not convinced of reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.  