Case ID: iowa_57/html/0704-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rothrock, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hickenbottom v. The C., B. & Q. R. Co.
    1. Evidence: suppiciency op: new trial. 'Where the evidence fully sustains the verdict, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed; and newly discovered evidence, which is merely cumulative, will not entitle the party to a new trial.
    
      Appeal from Jefferson District Court.
    
    Friday, March 24.
    Action to recover double the value of a cow which, it is alleged, was killed on the track of defendant’s road by an engine and train, by reason of the want of a sufficient fence upon the line of the railroad. There was a trial by jury and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
    
      Slagle & McCrackin, for appellant.
    
      Ratcliff & McCoy, for appellee.
   Rothrock, J.

The principal ground upon which a reversal of the judgment is claimed, is that the verdict finds no support in the evidence. This point is urged in a printed argument which elaborately reviews the evidence, and counsel in an oral argument strenuously com tended that under the evidence there was no justification for the verdict, and that notwithstanding the well known rule prevailing here, a new trial should be granted.

We have each carefully examined tbe whole record. The evidence appears to be fully presented and our conclusion is that tbe judgment must be affirmed. It is not to be expected that we will set out and discuss tbe evidence. The announcement of our conclusion on a question of fact is sufficient. The evidence is of no consequence to the profession and our views upon it would probably leave counsel for tbe appellant witb minds unchanged, firmly believing that the verdict is a great wrong upon their client.

II. The motion for a new trial was grounded, in part, upon certain alleged newly discovered evidence. This evidence was merely cumulative, and therefore was not such as entitled tbe defendant .to a new trial.

Affirmed.