Case Name: State of Minnesota vs. George Wagner
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1877-05-15
Citations: 23 Minn. 544
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Minnesota vs. George Wagner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
State of Minnesota vs. George Wagner.
May 15, 1877.
Municipal Court of Minneapolis. — Laws 1875, c. 41, § 1, providing that, upon the trial of any indictment in the district courts or courts of common pleas in this state, the defendant shall conclude the argument to the jury, does not apply to the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis.
New Trial — Newly-discovered Evidence. — -A motion for a new trial, on account of newly-discovered evidence, is properly denied when such evidence is all either impeaching, cumulative, or corroborative, or it is not shown that due-diligence was used to procure it.
Defendant was tried and convicted, in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis, on a complaint for assault and battery. At the trial the defendant excepted to the ruling of the court refusing to permit him to close the argument to the jury. For this alleged error, and on the ground that the verdict was against evidence, and on affidavits of newly-discovered evidence, the defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he appealed to this, court.
George B. Bobinson, for appellant.
George JP. Wilson, Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
Berry, J.
1. "When the evidence is concluded upon the trial of any indictment, in the district courts or courts of common pleas in this state, the defendant shall conclude the argument to the jury," Laws 1875, c. LL, § I-
This provision relates to the trial of indictments only. It cannot be made applicable to the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis, under Sp. Laws 1874, c. 141, § 12, because the proceeding by indictment is there Unknown.
2. Notwithstanding the defendant's claim to the contrary, there is certainly evidence in the case reasonably tending to sustain and justify the verdict.
3. The motion for a new trial, on account of newly-discovered evidence, was properly denied, since the evidence is all either impeaching, cumulative, or corroborative, or it is not shown that due diligence was used to procure it. State v. Dumphey, 4 Minn. 438; Mead v. Constans, 5 Minn. 171 ; Nininger v. Knox, 8 Minn. 140.
Judgment affirmed.