This case falls within the familiar rule that the first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court, unless the plaintiff in error shows that the judge abused his discretion in granting it, and the law and facts require the verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the presiding judge. • There was no abuse of discretion, and the law and facts did not require the verdict in the present case. Civil Code (1910), § 6204. Judgment affirmed.