Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1890-03-13
OPEN ING !!
THE
~ r w
SO UT H


xise ti,sy a,e hcnsd q refuse the opp Co.
lion. And In L<.reiies Pa ker il 10 ruled
: q, IN coosiAersg the nsstici-. the ecu
ell net inqsre ~h~rher, taking the newly
dircov- RID test m1sy In connection VIII
that exhibited on the trial jury might b
induced to give . d6ereEt verdict, but
~hethsr the legitimate eject Of sach evil
dence would rsqairr Different verdict.
The question. therefore. 10 (sapposing al
the testimony. new and old. before another
jury) rot whether they might, but whether
they ought TO give aeother verdict" This
doctrine 10 affirmed in numerous decisions
BY the highest courts in this country.
Handy = Gail. 80 Maine. 10; Ssoraas
.. Wardsseii, 81 Maine. 275; Toddv CAip.
man, 81 Maine. 1873; Trask =. Unity, -
Aaine. POS; Haisey '. Watson, l Gaines
IN. " "a; Thompson Com. Graft,
(va.) 637; Carr =. State. IA Ga. 1858;
Ludlow .. Park. 1 Hammond co. s.;
Erssgs keConaeN. l A. X. Marsh (Ky,)
iss; Sheppard .. Sheppard. 5 Halst. IN
) $50; Norris Hadiey. 3 Mich. 27s;
State Burge, Iowa 255; ksddl.toTn
. adams, 10 VT, 2s5 Harris '. Thomp-
con, rs Kan 372; Brorn c. Larhs, 95 Ill.
1875
The learned Judge who heard these mo
tisns presided At the trial. He heard the
testimony given on that trial from the
mouths Of the witnesses, was enabled TO
observe their conduct and demeanor, and
to some extent had better means of weigh
ing the creiibiiity of the conflicting
statements than The full court can have
from AZ examination Of their printed testi-
mony. He also saw many Of the witnesses
introi u .ed since the trial and heard their
statements aud observed their appearance
aud department. After full and deliber-
ate con siierat;un Of all the evidence In the
case, and with most thorough and ex-
haustive analysis of the same, he denied
the motions l. is rule thar prevails not
only OF the equity side Of the court. but
also in actions az lsS. tina. the decision Of
q single JUST e upon matters of fact de-
cided bv nim is entitled to proper weight
when the case is heard by the whole court
upon full report Of the evidence adduced
AZ the original hearing.
The court Of last resort, both in this
counsry and in England. in The application
Of this rule. hold that such decision should
not be reversed unless il clearly appears
that such decision is erroneous, and that the
burden TO show error tails upon the appel
l.n'. Young c. Hitham. rs Maine. $50 I;
Reed T. Reed, ia Mass. 1872; U. s ..
II2 Casks Of Sugar, 8 Pet 27S, 279; The
Gianni6anta, l l.. X. p. Div. 2s3 But
in the case before US there is no necessity
for the application of that rule. For lay
| ing aside all weight to which the decision
of the sitting Justice is properly entitled.
it is the opinion of this court that upon a
careful. thorough al d impartial consider
alton Of the evidence before it. no new
trial should be granted.
II does not appear that any Injustice will
be done in refusing it. The legitimate eff
feet If the entire body of new evidence, to
which we have have had occasion to alluie,
in another part of this opinion, taken in
connection with the other evidence, is by
no means such as ought, in the opinion Of
the court, TO produce an opposite result or
another trial. Nor would the jury be war
ranted from any thing that appears in the
case in arriving at different conclusion ro,u
that already found, on account oft With.
out this. it Is the duty of the court to deny
the motion and allow the verdict Of the
Jury to remain undisturbed.
Notions orerruied. Judgment for I'll.
State
Peters, C. j.. Walton, Danforth, Virgin
Libbey, Emery and Haskell, J. j.. COB
Cured