Case ID: cin-sup-ct-rep_2/html/0018-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TIaoans, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Special Term,
    
      June 1870.]
    B. T. Redman, Jr. v. H. Clay Culbertson.
    It is not a test that evidence is cumulative, on a motion for a new trial by the defendant, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, that the affidavits in support of it do not go to some new ground of defense. If they bring to light some new and independent truth of a different character, although it tend to prove some proposition or ground of defense before insisted on, or if it tend to render clear and positive, that which was before equivocal and uncertain by the statement of new facts, it is not cumulative evidence.
    0’ Connor § Powell, for plaintiff.
    
      Henderson, Collins $ Herron, and T. A. Logan, for defendant.
   TIaoans, J.

Some of this new testimony tends also to render clear and positive that which before was equivocal and uncertain by the statement of new facts. And such testimony as this is not cumulative, in any just sense. It is not additional evidence of the same facts. And taking all the new evidence that is proper now to be considered, if uncontradicted upon another trial, the verdict of the jury will be different. These principles are adopted by our Supreme Court in a number of cases. Reid v. McGrew, 5 Ohio, 375; Dunn v. Cronice, 9 Ohio, 82; Perrin v. Prot. Ins. Co., 11 Ohio, 147.

And the same principle is clearly stated in How v. Bodman, 1 Disney, 119.

Eor these reasons, the motion for new trial will be granted. Costs to abide the event.