Case ID: blume-sup-ct-trans_3/html/0670-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

97
    1821
    Sup: Court
    
      Heman Brown Jr vs Lowrin Marsh
    
    Filed in open Court 3rd Oct 1823
    Jer. V R Ten Eyck
    Dy Clerk
   Michigan to wit

SUPREME COURT SEPTEMBER TERM ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED & TWENTY THREE

Heman Brown Jr Vs Lowrin Marsh

Reasons — on motion for New Trial

First — that the verdict in said case is contrary to law —

Second That the said verdict is contrary to evidence

Third That incompetent & irrelevant testimoney was permitted to go to the said Jury — And especially in this to wit that it appeared by the plaintiff’s own showing that the charge of the said plaintiff of $324.51. was founded upon an alleged special & written agreement the terms whereof are in no wise set out in said declaration & that it further appeared by the plff’s own showing that there had been an award or an appraisment in the premises & that it was not competent to prove said matters in the premises by parol.

Fourth. That the said Defendant was taken by surprise in this that he was compelled unexpectedly to trial in said case, & lost thereby the benefit of his own testimoney.

Fifth —■ That there was a mistrial in this that before the finding of said verdict an issue in law was presented to the Court in said case which issue in law ought by the law of the land to have been decided before the finding of said Verdict — And in this to wit that a plea puis darein continuance was regularly put in & filed, which, being received, by the law of the land it became improper to proceed further upon the issue previously closed in said case Lanman & Lawrence

sd Marsh, Attys 
      [In the handwriting of William Woodbridge]