Case ID: ind-l-rep_1/html/0129-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Woods.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cornelius W. McDaniel v. Mary A. Mattingly.
    
      Bill of Exceptions—Affidavits.—Affidavits must be made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions.
    
      Filed March 29, 1881.
    Appeal from Daviess.
    O’Neall & Hefron, for appellants,
    cited Graham & W. on New Trials, 1048; Humphreys v. Klick, 49 Ind. 190; Bains v. Ballou, 57 Ind. 79, as to admissions of party in regard to cumulative evidence.
    W. R. Gardiner and S. H. Taylor, for appellee.
   Opinion of the court by

Mr. Justice Woods.

The affidavits on which the appellant claims a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence are not made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions. Counsel claim no other error. The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

Williams v. Potter, (at this term); Matlock v. Todd, 19 Ind. 130; Horton v. Wilson, 25 Ind. 316; Burnett v. Overton, 67 Ind. 557; Fryherger v. Perkins, 66 Ind. 19; Burlin v. Oglesbee etal., 65 Ind. 308; Buskirk’s Practice, 241.

Judgment affirmed with costs.