Case ID: sd_64/html/0642-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PEiR 'CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE, Respondent, v. GONSOR, Appellant.
    (269 N. W. 568.)
    (File No. 7913.
    Opinion filed November 16 1936.)
    /. G. McFarland and K. C. Paterson, both of Watertown, for Appellant.
    
      Walter Conway, Attorney General, Laurence Dimsdale, Assistant Attorney -General, and LeuUis W. Bickneil, State’s Attorney, of Webster, for the State.
   PEiR 'CURIAM.

The defendant was -convicted under an information containing two counts: First, -driving while intoxicated; second, failing to stop- the automobile which he was driving after injuring a person. The only -question presented on this appeal is whether a new trial should be granted upon the grounds of newly discovered evidence. We have carefully considered the entire record and especially the affidavits submitted in support of a motion for a new trial. W1e are- of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to- grant the motion.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

All the Judges concur.