When will a judge grant a motion for a directed verdict?

I agree with the foregoing opinion. But I cannot understand why the trial judge denied the defendants' motion for a new trial. At the conclusion of defendants' argument for an instructed verdict the judge said: 'They [the jurors] are the ones that have to decide it. Could I, I am not impressed with the lawsuit, and I would resolve these conflicts in evidence in favor of the defendants. My hands are tied, but I can't do it.' The motion for a directed verdict was properly denied since there was evidence that would have supported a verdict for the plaintiff. But if the judge believed that the conflicts in the evidence should be resolved in favor of defendants, it was his duty to grant their motion for a new trial. It has always been the law in this state that if the trial judge in ruling on a motion for a new trial believes that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, 'The court is bound to grant a new trial and has no discretion to refuse it.' Hawkins v. Reichert, 28 Cal. 534. However, in view of the possibility that the judge had changed his mind I do not see how we can go so far as to say that he neglected to weigh the evidence and to perform the extremely important duty of deciding whether the preponderance lay with the plaintiffs or the defendants.