Case ID: cal_63/html/0233-01.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

[Department One.
    March 7, 1883.]
    WILLIAM H. BATE, Appellant, v. GEORGE MILLER et al., Respondents.
    Motion nob New Tbial—Statement—Findings.—Where amotion is made for a new trial on the ground that the findings are not sustained by the evidence, the statement must specify the particulars in which the evidence is insufficient.
    Subpbise and Newly Discovebed Evidence.—A motion for a new trial on the ground of surprise or newly discovered evidence must he supported by affidavit.
    Findings—Motion to Amend and Make Additional.—It is not error to refuse to amend the findings or to make additional findings after a judgment has been entered and a motion for a new trial denied.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, from an order refusing a new trial, and from an order refusing to amend the findings or make additional findings.
    The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. «
    
      William H. Bate, Appellant in person.
    
      B. S. Broohs, for Respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The judgment and orders must be affirmed. The findings are sufficient to sustain the judgment and the statement on motion for new trial contains no sufficient specification of particulars wherein the findings are unsustained by the evidence. There is no affidavit in support of the alleged grounds of surprise and newly discovered evidence, which by statute is made essential to the granting of a motion for ■ new trial on either of those grounds. And with respect to the plaintiff’s motion to “amend and make additional findings,” it is sufficient to say that this motion was made long after the entry of the judgment and the denial of the motion for a new trial.

Judgment and orders affirmed.