Solomon v. Goldstein

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Solomon v. Goldstein

182 A. 772, 120 Pa. Super. 396, 1936 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 13, 1935

DocketAppeal, 250

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A. 772 (Solomon v. Goldstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Solomon v. Goldstein, 182 A. 772, 120 Pa. Super. 396, 1936 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16 (Pa. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellants’ only ground of complaint is that the court below did not grant a new trial because the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses was unworthy of belief. It was the province of the jury to pass on the credibility of witnesses and decide disputed matters of fact. If the court below felt that the verdict rendered by the jury was against the weight of the evidence, it *397 could grant a new trial. It was its duty to do so if it was satisfied that the verdict was obtained by false testimony or was clearly unjust. An appellate court will not interfere with the discretion of the lower court in refusing a new trial, applied for on such grounds, unless the order amounts to a clear abuse of discretion.

The learned trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses in court and who wrote the opinion of the lower court refusing a new trial, did not feel that the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses was unworthy of belief, but was of opinion that it was proper for the consideration of the jury. We find nothing in the record that convinces us that, in so deciding, the court was guilty of a clear abuse of discretion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

Appellants’ only ground of complaint is that the court below did not grant a new trial because the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses was unworthy of belief. It was the province of the jury to pass on the credibility of witnesses and decide disputed matters of fact. If the court below felt that the verdict rendered by the jury was against the weight of the evidence, it *397 could grant a new trial. It was its duty to do so if it was satisfied that the verdict was obtained by false testimony or was clearly unjust. An appellate court will not interfere with the discretion of the lower court in refusing a new trial, applied for on such grounds, unless the order amounts to a clear abuse of discretion.

The learned trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses in court and who wrote the opinion of the lower court refusing a new trial, did not feel that the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses was unworthy of belief, but was of opinion that it was proper for the consideration of the jury. We find nothing in the record that convinces us that, in so deciding, the court was guilty of a clear abuse of discretion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A. 772, 120 Pa. Super. 396, 1936 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-v-goldstein-pasuperct-1935.