clerk versus udall mich Ann B R S c Faresl new trial for excessive damage and  the same damage give and three trial refuse see Mod lev side comb upon a trial  at nisi prius the jury have excessive damage and for this cause a new trial be  grant a the second jury give the same damage again and a second new trial be  move for and deny because there ought to be a end of thing but several case be  cite which the chief justice allow that where upon the second trial the jury  have double the damage a three trial have be grant b a in action for tort  where the damage depend upon sentiment and opinion the court will not grant a  new trial on the ground of excessive damage unless it appear that they be  flagrant outrageous and extravagant therefore they have refuse to interpose  when l be give for a few hour false imprisonment leeman v Allen will huckle v  money id or l to a attorney for false imprisonment by a king messenger for six  day beardmore v Carrington will or l to one merchant against another for a  slight assault accompany by ungentlemanlike behaviour grey v grant m p will or  against a customhouse officer for a unsuccessful search for prohibit good  sharp v Brice Bl vide also Benson v Frederick burr where l damage to a  militiaman against his colonel for unlawful corporal punishment Fabrigas v  Mostyn Bl where l in false imprisonment Leith v pope Bl where l for malicious  prosecution Gilbert v Burtonshaw Cowp where l for the like injury ducker v  wood t r where l for a assault were hold not excessive damage but in all the  precede case it be assert that the court be not preclude from grant a new  trial for excessive damage where they be manifest unjust and a evidence of  passion or partiality in the jury in Wilford v Berkeley burr where l damage be  give for crim con against a clerk with a salary of l the court refuse to grant  a new trial and seem to think that in that action it can not be do and in  duberley v gunning t r l damage be give in a similar action Lord Kenyon and  Ashhurst I think a new trial can not be grant there have be no precedent  though the damage under the circumstance of the case be enormous buller I  think there shall be a new trial grose I think that the case do not require a  new trial but do nor deny that a case of such a action can exist which may  warrant the interference of the court in Jones v sparrow t r a new trial be  grant for excessive damage in assault and Lord Kenyon say it must be remember  that although Duberly v gunning be decide after a very full discussion of the  subject the court be not unanimous in their determination but whether right or  not decide that be a case Himself noble birth and can govern the present b  vide Str will t r burr Salkeld er p Salkeld the case OF the mayor and alderman  OF bristol mich Ann B R S C Faresl salk pl salk holt No new trial in inferior  court salk Faresl it be hold by the court that a new trial can be grant in a  inferior court for they be not like trial by nisi prius which be subordinate  upon writ issue out of this court over which the court have authority and  inspection but this be a new trial a year after the first which the court  blame a a r brook v ewer Str that a inferior court can not grant a new trial  for excessive damage but where after issue join or notice of trial give there  be a reference and the plaintiff afterward proceed by surprise such court may  grant a new trial jewel v hill Str street case vin in the latter it be say  that though a inferior court can grant a new trial after a cause have be full  hear yet where a verdict be obtain through surprise or by any irregularity it  may be set aside vide ac Bayley v Boorne Str king v Peter burr Blaquiere v  Hawkins Doug in king v urling fort it be hold that such court may set aside a  writ of inquiry or judgement though strict regular if obtain by fraud or  surprise and in king v Peter it be rule that a regular interlocutory judgement  though there appear no fraud or surprise may be set aside in a inferior court  in order to let in a trial on the merit