Case ID: mass_23/html/0419-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Chatfield, Petitioner, &c. versus Hezekiah Lathrop.
    Where a witness on whose testimony a verdict was found, denied on the voir ant that he had any interest in the case, newly discovered evidence of his being interested was admitted upon an application for a new trial; and it being further proved, by similar evidence of declarations of the witness and of the prevailing party, that the witness had testified untruly, a new trial was granted.
    This was a petition for a new trial. Chatfield sued Lathrop to recover 63 dollars, which he had paid him about the 5th of March, 1826. The verdict, which was in favor of Lathrop, turned upon the testimony of one Piper, who testified, that he was present on the 5th of March, when money passed from Chatfield to Lathrop, but that the sum of 63 dollars, which Chatfield contended he had paid to Lathrop at that time, was not so paid. Chatfield objected to Piper on account of his interest, and the witness being put on the voir dire, the ob jection was overruled. The ground of the present application was, that Chatfield had discovered evidence since the trial which would exclude Piper’s testimony ; and if he should fail in this, that he had discovered evidence since the trial, which would prove by the declarations of Lathrop and Piper, that he did pay the sum of 63 dollars to Lathrop, as above mentioned
    
      Sept. 10th.
    
    
      Whiting and Dwight, for the petitioner.
    
      C. JL. Dewey, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

On the part of the respondent it is said, that as the witness was put upon the voir dire, the' evidence now produced to show that he was interested is inadmissible. If this evidence had been known at the time of the trial, it would be so ; but as the case proceeds upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, we think it ought to be received. Still it might be questioned whether a new trial should be granted on account of the inadmissibility of the witness. The evidence however goes further. It shows that the defendant and Piper both admitted that the plaintiff had paid the 63 dollars. The testimony of the new witnesses would contradict Piper, and if he were discredited, would support the action. It is then said that this evidence is cumulative ; but we do not consider it to be so. Cumulative evidence is such as tends to support the same fact which was before attempted to be proved. Here the new evidence is to show that Piper confessed he testified what was untrue. This was not in controversy at the trial. Justice requires that a new trial should be granted. 
      
       The discovery of new witnesses to impeach the testimony of a witness examined on the former trial, is not sufficient ground to grant a new trial. Dickenson v. Blake, 7 Bro. P. C 177; Halsey v. Watson, 1 Caines’s R. 24; Rowley v. Kinney, 14 Johns. R. 186. See Keen v. Sprague, 3 Greenl. 77; Haskell v. Beckett, 3 Greenl. 92. But it is held a good cause for granting a new trial, that one of the witnesses of the party in whose favor the verdict is, has been convicted of perjury in the cause. Great Falls Manuf. Co. v. Mathes, N. Hampsh. R. 574; Morrell v. Kimball, 1 Greenl. 322.
     
      
      
         See People v. Superior Court of New York, 10 Wendell, 285
     
      
       See Gardner v. Mitchell, ante, 116, notes 1,2.