Case ID: ny-st-rep_70/html/0912-13.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eliza W. White et al., v. Edward M. Benjamin et al.
    
    N. Y. Supr. Ct.,
    December 18, 1895.
    
      Smith & Dougherty and L. S. Tenney, for app’lts; Whitlock <6 Simonds, (W. O. Beecher, of counsel), for respt’s.
   Per Curiam.

To warrant a new trial in this case the practice requires not only that the newly-discovered evidence be material, and that it has been discovered since tlietrial, but that the evidence could not, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been sooner discovered; and that it is so decisive in character as to make it appear with reasonable certainity that on another trial it would change the result. The defendants did not present a case bringing them within the rule stated, and no error was committed by the court below in denying their motion. The order appealed from must he affirmed, with costs.