Case ID: cal_88/html/0110-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Harrison, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 13386.
    Department One.
    February 21, 1891.]
    MARTHA B. THOMPSON, Respondent, v. I. N. THOMPSON et al., Appellants.
    Evidence—Weight of Testimony — Conflict — Corroboration — Duty of Trial Court. —• The testimony in behalf of the plaintiff, though contradicted in some particulars by the testimony of the defendant, if fully corroborated in substance by other uncontradicted portions of the defendant’s testimony, cannot properly be disregarded by the trial court, either in its decision upon the trial or upon a motion for a new trial.
    New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence — Appeal. — An order denying a new trial asked for on the ground of newly discovered evidence will be affirmed upon appeal, when it appears that the affidavit of the moving party is chiefly a repetition of testimony given at the trial, is argumentative, and sets forth documentary evidence not shown by any facts stated to be connected with the subject of the controversy, and is so directly contradicted by counter-affidavits that the trial court was not bound to accept it as true.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, and from an order denying a new trial. . ,
    The facts- are- stated in- the' iopinion of the court.
    
      J. C. Black, for Appellants.
    
      D. W. Burchard, for Respondent.
   Harrison, J.

The appeal in this action is without

merit. The evidence introduced at the trial justified the finding of the court, that the respondent was the owner and entitled to the possession of the premises described in the complaint, and that they were unlawfully withheld from her by the defendants. Although a portion of the testimony in behalf of the plaintiff was in some particulars contradicted by the testimony of the appellant, yet the version given by the witness for the plaintiff of the transaction which resulted in her purchase of the premises was so fully corroborated by other uncontradicted portions of his testimony that the court would not have been justified in disregarding it, either in its decision upon the trial or upon the appellant’s motion for a new trial. The newly discovered evidence set forth in the affidavit of appellant, upon which she sought a new trial, consisted chiefly of a repetition of her testimony at the trial, and is more of an argumentative character than a statement of facts. The documentary evidence referred to in the affidavit is of a date long subsequent to the purchase by the plaintiff of the lands in controversy; and no fact is stated in her affidavit which in any way connected this documentary evidence with such purchase. Moreover, this affidavit of the appellant was so directly contradicted by the affidavits on behalf of the respondent that the court was not bound to accept it as true. The judgment and order" appealed from are affirmed.

Beatty, C. J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.