 | 1906 - 1052 str.
...assignment of error relates to the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant a new trial, because the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. The action of the trial court in granting or refusing to set aside a verdict is not subject to review in... | |
 | 1908 - 1104 str.
...bridge company would not be entitled to compensation, and the verdict should be guilty. The jury having returned a verdict of guilty, the defendant moved for a new trial. DT Watson and James H. Beal, for the rule. John W. Dunkle, US Atty., opposed. ARCHBALD, District Judge*... | |
 | 1877 - 966 str.
...the 1st day of April, 1871. The defendant thereupon moved for a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. The motion was overruled and a bill of exceptions " No. 3 " was taken, in which the facts were certified. The first and, I suppose... | |
 | Mississippi. Supreme Court - 1844 - 808 str.
...him, he moved for a new trial, because the judge misdirected the jury, Downs r. Planters Bank. and because the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. The motion was overruled, and thereupon the defendant's counsel embodied the evidence in a bill of exceptions, and brought up the... | |
 | Wisconsin. Supreme Court, Abram Daniel Smith, Philip Loring Spooner, Obadiah Milton Conover, Frederic King Conover, Frederick William Arthur, Frederick C. Seibold - 1897 - 784 str.
...grounds, among others, that the court erred in the omission and rejection of testimony, and that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. The motion was overruled, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, from which this appeal was taken. For the appellant... | |
 | Illinois. Appellate Court, Martin L. Newell, Mason Harder Newell, Walter Clyde Jones, Keene Harwood Addington, James Christopher Cahill, Basil Jones, James Max Henderson, Ray Smith - 1907 - 726 str.
...offered by defendants, and giving improper instructions asked by the plaintiffs, and in not granting a new trial, because the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. PHELPS & CLEXAND, for appellants; VicTOR M. HARDING, of counse1. ERIC WINTERS, for appellees.... | |
 | George Brubaker Kulp, Joseph D. Coons, Wesley E. Woodruff - 1888 - 590 str.
...disagree. The jury were reprimanded and directed to give the case further consideration. They afterwards returned a verdict of guilty. The defendant moved for a new trial upon these grounds. This was a misdemeanor, and it would have been within the discretion of the court... | |
 | Wisconsin. Supreme Court, Abram Daniel Smith, Philip Loring Spooner, Obadiah Milton Conover, Frederic King Conover, Frederick William Arthur, Frderick C. Seibold - 1897 - 776 str.
...Damages were assessed at $2,000. A motion was made by the defendants to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, because the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence. The motion was denied. Judgment was entered on the verdict in plaintiffs favor, from... | |
| |
... and because the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. 
