jury was composed of intelligent persons. The trial developed no warmth or feeling, and there is nothing in the case from which to conclude that another jury, finding for the plaintiff, would place the damages at a less sum. For myself, I might say that I consider the award liberal, but I cannot say that the amount is so excessive as to warrant the conclusion that it is the result of passion, prejudice, or mistake on the part of the jury. The motion for a new trial must therefore be denied.
(Ofreuit Oourt, E. D. N6'IO York. January 11,1882.)
lNronv-VERDICT. Where, in an action for damages for personal injury caused by the alleged negligence of defendant, the instruction t() the jury was as favorable to plaintiff as he was entitled to, and there is nothing to indicate that the jury were· actuated by passion or prejudice, the verdict will not be Bet aside.
On Motion to Set Aside Verdict. This action was brought in a cOurt in the state of New York to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the fall of the plaintiff on a snowy day in December, 1879, upon the steps of the Trinity building in New York city, No. - , Broadway. The defendant is. one of the heirs of. the estate, and the action was removed from the state court to the United States circuit court under the act of 1875. The cause came onto be heard at the November term, 1881, beforeHon. H. K Wheeler, district judge, holding the circuit .court, and jury; and a verdict was rendered for the defendant. Thornton, Earle « Kiendl, for pla.intiff. Strong tt Cadwalader, for defendant. WHEELER, D. J. This cause has been heard upon the motion of the plaintiff, after verdict for the defendant, to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. No complaint is made but that the instrliction to the jury that the defendant was in duty bound to provide reasona· bly safe steps for the accommodation of persons entering to do business with his tenants in the building of which he was an owner and lessor, in accordance with the purposes of the renting, was as favorable to plaintiff as he was entitled to: The evidence as to the actual condi· tion of the steps at the time when the plaintiff slipped upon them and fell, and as to what would constitnte reasonably safe steps for
TBOMPSON V. SHEA.
the purposes for which these were used, was conflicting; and the proof as to the degree of care used by the plaintiff in attempting to pass over the steps was not so clear in favor of the plaintiff that the court could properly instruct the jury that there was no contributory negligence on his part. All these questions had to he submitted tp the jury, and, notwithstanding the measure of duty laid upon the defendant, they found in his favor. There is nothing to indicate that they were actuated by either passion or prejudice. To grant a new trial would be merely to allow an appeal upon these questions of fact from that jury to another. That is not allowable by the rules of law or the practice of courts. The motion must be overruled and. judgment be entered on the verdict.
& Co. v.
(C'ircaie Coure, D. IO'lOa, C. D. J1lIle 18, 1881 ;
1. DAJoLlGEll-PRoVlNcBl OJ' JURY.
It is the province of the jury to find the amount due, as well as plaintiff's right to recover, and after the jury are discharged the court cllunot increase the sum found. 2. NEW TRIAL- DISCRETION OF COURT.
Motions for new trial are addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
On Motion to Set Aside Verdict. Parsons It Runnells, for plaintiffs. .i Phillips, Goode It Phillips, for defendant LOVE/D. J. I have consulted with, Mr. Justice Miller about the motion in this case, and we find no warrant in law for increasing sum found by the jury, and entering judgment for said increased sum. It was a part of the province of the jury to find the amount due, as well as the plaintiff's right to recover. If the jury had brought a verdict for the plaintiff without finding any sum, the COUl't would have directed them to amend their verdict in that regard; and it would have been competent for the plaintiff to have moved the court to require the jury to correct their verdict before they were discharged; but tlie jury having been discharged, the court cannot increase the sum found. All that the court could do would be to Bet aside the verdict and order a new trial. Motions for new trials are, in the United States courts, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The party losing has no absolute right to a new trial. This