Hartlove v. E. & H. Bottling Co.

⁵⁰⁸ Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the trial court granting a new trial, and from its refusal to strike out that order. The order was passed on motion of the defendant after a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in a suit for personal injuries. The grounds stated in the motion were the formal ones usually assigned, and, in addition, misconduct on the part of the jury.

It is urged by appellant that there was abuse of discretion by the trial judge; that there was no real hearing of the motion, but that the judge acted on ex parte representations made to him privately by defendant’s attorney, and on information obtained from the offending juror in chambers, in the presence of counsel representing plaintiff and defendant, but without a formal hearing in open court, and without compliance with certain rules of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City. In addition, it was argued by appellant that, on the alleged facts relied on by the court, there was no justification for granting a new trial, and consequently the action of the court was abuse of discretion; and a number of cases were cited from other jurisdictions tending to support the view that the soundness of the discretion of the court in matters of fact and law in passing on such a motion may be reviewed. But as said by this court in Chiswell v. Nichols, 139 Md. 442 , 115 A. 790, 792 , in which Chief Judge Boyd wrote the opinion: “It would not be helpful to review the decisions of other courts as to when a ruling on a motion for a new trial will or can be reviewed, as the practice differs in many states from ours and our own decisions have settled the question in this state.” Before proceeding further, we may as well dismiss from consideration the suggestion that any mistake or erroneous conclusion as to law or fact can be brought up for review on an appeal from the trial court’s action on such a motion. We feel, however, that it ought to be said in passing that the alleged offense of the juror was a grave one, which -we cannot say might not have affected the verdict, and the judge could well have felt impelled to act as he did in an honest and fair ⁵⁰⁹ ■discharge of his obligation to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings, if he believed, as he unquestionably did, that the alleged offense had been committed.

It is not necessary to narrate the alleged facts of the occurrence; for whether, under like circumstances, we would have reached the same conclusion, is beside the point. It remains to consider procedural irregularities, and their effect. Conceding that they existed, it does not necessarily follow that the conclusion reached by the court is reviewable. Before disposing of this question it may be helpful to refer to the law of this state as announced by this court in an unbroken line of decisions from the beginning down to the present time.

Many cases are cited in 2 Poe, PI. & Pr., note to section 349, in support of the author’s unqualified statement of the law in the text: “Motions for a new trial are addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and from its action in "granting or refusing them, whether absolutely or on terms, no appeal will lie.” In the brief, and in the oral arguments of the appellant, much emphasis' is laid on the