case smith against Crompton in a action against a person for negligent keep  his fire whereby the plaintiff house be burn if the jury find a verdict for  the defendant the court will not grant a new trial on the ground that the  evidence be doubtful and the judge dissatisfy with the verdict S c salk in a  action on the case for negligent keep his fire whereby the plaintiff house be  burn see whether c S post a there be a doubtful evidence give at the trial  before the chief justice at the nisi prius and the jury give a verdict for the  defendant modern it be move several time for a new trial because the evidence  be very doubtful upon which the verdict be give against the plaintiff and it  be insist on his behalf that though it be true that in a information of  perjury side b where the defendant be find guilty the court will not grant a  new trial though it appear there be no reason for such a verdict unless the  king counsel will consent to it yet in a action of debt bring by a informer  and a verdict for the defendant the court may grant a new trial because the  party have a interest and this be the difference take in the book it may be a  thing of ill consequence if it shall not be in the power of the court to grant  new trial in case where there be apparent reason for so do as where excessive  damage be give for word see clark v udal salk Redshaw v brook will Wilford v  Berkley burr Benson v Frederick burr Hayward v Newton stram but the general  rule be that in personal tort the court will never grant a new trial for  excessive damage unless they be such as manifest show the jury to have be  actuate b that passion partiality or prejudice Cowp c or where two verdict  have be give against one defendant and in many other case see Com dig pleader  r the vo edition by Mr kid where all the case on this subject be collect a but  on the other side it be say that no new trial can be grant in this case though  the court shall see any reason for it and the case of sir John Jackson side b  be chief rely on who be discharge of a great debt at the assize in Cumberland  by the perjury of Fenwick and holt who be indict for the same crime sir John  procure the witness to be arrest who can prove the perjury so that they can  not come to the assize to give evidence and thereupon Fenwick and holt be  acquit and though this practice appear plain upon several affidavit yet the  modern er p court will not grant a new trial but order a information against  sir John Jackson upon which he be find gild and fine one thousand mark  afterward anew trial be deny in the principal case in S c salk it be say that  the chief justice be dissatisfy with the verdict but that the reason of refuse  a new trial be because it be a hard action see also spark v spicer salk king  Dunkley v wade salk c