Case ID: ind_45/html/0172-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pettit, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Parks v. Hill.
    New Trial.—Appeal.—When the rejection of evidence is not properly assigned as a cause for a new trial in the court below, such ruling cannot be considered in the Supreme Court.
    Same.—That “ the court erred in excluding material and competent evidence offered by the defendant,” is too general a statement of a cause for a new trial. The particular evidence excluded must be stated in the motion.
    From the Dearborn Common Pleas.
    
      E. W. Adkinson. and F. Adkinson, for appellant.
   Pettit, J.

The appellee brought this suit against the appellant, to recover pay for a quantity of hay sold and delivered.

Proper issues were formed by answer and reply. There was a trial by jury and a verdict for plaintiff! Motion for a a new trial for the following reasons:

1st. Because the verdict of the jury is contrary to law.
“ 2d. Because the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence.
“ 3d. Because the verdict of the jury is excessive.
“ 4th. Because the court erred in excluding material and competent evidence offered by the defendant.
5th. Because the court erred in admitting improper and illegal evidence offered by the plaintiff to be given to the jury over the objection of the defendant”

The only legally assigned error is the overruling of this motion for a new trial. It is admitted by counsel for appellant in their brief, that a reversal can not be had on the evidence, and the only point insisted on for a reversal is the refusal of the court to allow a certain question to be put to and answered by a witness called by the defendant. The ruling of the court on this question may have been a good cause for a new trial, if it had been pointed out in any of the reasons for a new trial and the attention of the court specifically called to it, but this was not done. The fourth cause for a new trial is too general and uncertain, in not pointing out what or whose evidence was improperly excluded.

There is nothing in the motion for a new trial or assignment of error upon which we can reverse the judgment. The court below committed no error in overruling the motion for a new trial as it was presented.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.