The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1894-03-29
GETS A NEW TRIAL.
Grants Perjury Causes the Lauer
Estate to Fight Again.

ESSdlV " G-IynS n90bns
Judge Webber has granted the mo-
ton for new trial in the case of John
B. Lauer, as administrators of the es-
tate of William Lauer, deceased, VS..
the Winona & St. Peter Railroad Co.,
a case wherein the jury brought in a
verdict of Sc, 1000 for the plaintiff, and
wherein q. S. Grant admits having
perjured himself. Inasmuch as sew
eral of the jurors haye expressed
themselves that they paid no atten-
ton to Grants testimony, but brought
in the verdict from the other evidence
adduced, the case is not settled yet.
1t will be remembered that the appli-
cation for new trial was made first,
for excessive damages awarded, YER
dict not justified by the evidence, the
verdict being contrary to law, and for
errors of law at the trial, and after
wards supplemented by the addition
al grounds of accident and surprise,
misconduct of the prevailing party,
and newly discovered evidence mater
ial to to the defendant, which it could
not with reasonable diligence have
discovered and produced at the trial.
Judge Weber, in the order granting
the new trial, reviews the case at
length, saying:
The order 70 show cause was grant
ed upon the afidavits of George G.
Welch and l.. l.. Brown land other
afidavits subsequently excluded and
upon the return of the order, Feb. n,
1894, the defendant had procured the
additional atfidavits of Alexander Nc
IIreavie, Helena Watson, Henry Lyss
and w. D. Abbott and applied for
leave to serve the same upon the plain
tiff's attorneys, and the hearing was
thereupon adjourned TO March Is,
1894; and the defendant was directed
to serve said affidavits upon the plant
ifs attorneys at least eight days be-
fore said 18th day of March, 1894; said
afidavits together with the affidavit of
US. Grant we're duly served upon the
plaintiffs attorney on the "a day of
March, 1894; and all of said affidavits
were by order of the Court allowed to
be used and considered upon said mo-
ton for new trial.
In my opinion the evidence of U. S.
Grant was the most important OF any
given on the trial of said action, on
the part of the plaintiff, and, without
his evidence, the verdict could not be
sustained.
The atfdavits presented on the hear
ing convince me that the evidence OF
said U. S. Grant was wholly false and
perjured; and, in my opinion, by the
weight of authority, when this is made
to appear, it is ground for new trial
The proceedings on the part of the
defendant in moving upon additional
grounds for a new trial were, in some
respects irregular, but as all the affi-
davits upon which the motion was
based we're served upon the plaintiff s
attorneys at least thirteen days before
the hearing, and the plaintiff had am
pie time to procure and did procure
rebutting afidavits, in my opinion, the
plaintiff was not prejudiced by such
irregularities; and if the Rules OF
Practice we're in some respects relaxed
to prevent verdict procured by per
iured evidence from being sustained
| / think such relaxation is authorized
by section 81 of Chapter Ga, General
| Statutes 1878.
Ordered, That the verdict herein be
| and the same is, hereby vacated ano
set aside, and that new trial be ane
the same is hereby granted.
Dated March 19, 1894.
B. f. WEBER,