Case ID: nj-misc_5/html/0194-01.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

RACHEL CATTRELL HOFF AND ARTHUR HOFF, HER HUSBAND, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. MARTIN WHITE, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
    Submitted October 16, 1926
    Decided January 28, 1927.
    Negligence — Injury Resulting From Fail on Sidewalk — Verdict For Defendant Will Not be Set Aside Where the Rule was Not Applied For Until Six Months After it was Rendered, and an Examination of the Proofs Reveal That the Newly-Discovered Evidence is Only Accumulative.
    On plaintiffs’ rule to show cause why a new trial should not he granted.
    Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Trenohard and Minturn.
    Eor the rule, Clarence Kelsey.
    
    Contra, John D. Craven.
    
   Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover on account of injuries alleged to have resulted from a fall due to the condition of the sidewalk in front of defendant’s premises made so by the act of the defendant in piling and artificially accumulating loose snow over a layer of ice. The defense was that plaintiff did not fall in front of defendant’s premises, but in front of a neighboring property. The jury found in favor of the defendant on January 21st, 1926. This rule to show cause why a new trial should not he granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, was not applied for until six months later.

Our examination of the proofs result in the conclusion that the newly-discovered evidence is merely cumulative and corroborative of evidence heard at the trial, and, hence, more especially in view of the long delay, will not justify a new trial.

The rule will be discharged.