PER CURIAM.
The single issue presented by this appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdicts returned by a jury were grossly excessive. There is no indication that the District Court acted arbitrarily or that it failed to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner. As we stated in Lebeck v. William A. Jarvis, Inc., 3 Cir., 1957, 250 F.2d 285, 288: “ * * * that is the extent of our concern as a reviewing court.” See also Brest v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 3 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 331 and Trowbridge v. Abrasive Co. of Philadelphia, 3 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 825.
The judgment of the District Court, 162 F.Supp. 276, will be affirmed.