Secreto v. Carlander

McCOMB, J. —

Prom an order granting plaintiff Lois Jean Secreto’s motion for a new trial unless defendants consented that the verdict and judgment of the jury in the sum of $150 be increased to $1200, defendant Carlander appeals.

These are the essential facts:

A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Lois Jean Secreto in an action for damages in the sum of $150. Plaintiff filed a notice of intention to move for a new trial, reading as follows:

“TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEPENDANT, ROT J. CARLANDER, AND TO GEORGE L. GREER, HIS ATTORNEY:

“YOU AND EACH OP YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above named plaintiffs, Lois Jean Secreto, a

[363]

minor child, by Pearl Secreto, her guardian

ad litem,

Pearl Secreto and James Secreto, intend to move the above entitled court for its order vacating and setting aside the decision and/or judgment of said court rendered and entered in the above cause and/or for its order granting to said plaintiffs a new trial of said cause.

“Said motion will be made for the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said plaintiffs, to-wit:

“1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court by which plaintiffs were prevented from having a fair trial;

“2. Orders of the court by which plaintiffs were prevented from having a fair trial;

“3. Abuses of discretion by which plaintiffs were prevented from having a fair trial;

“4. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict;

‘15. That the verdict is against law;

. “6. Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.

“7. Errors in law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the plaintiffs.

“8. That the damages awarded plaintiffs were inadequate to compensate for the injuries and damages indisputably proven.