Case Name: H. W. TAYLOR, Respondent, v. JAMES McKINLEY, ALEXANDER GARRIOCH and G. W. MOWBRAY, Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1854-01
Citations: 4 Cal. 104
Docket Number: 
Parties: *H. W. TAYLOR, Respondent, v. JAMES McKINLEY, ALEXANDER GARRIOCH and G. W. MOWBRAY, Appellants.
Judges: Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 104–105

Head Matter:
*H. W. TAYLOR, Respondent, v. JAMES McKINLEY, ALEXANDER GARRIOCH and G. W. MOWBRAY, Appellants.
Appeal — Review oh. — Where the evidence is dubious or conflicting, this Court will not revise the discretion of the Court below, in granting or refusing a new trial.
Appeal from the Superior Court of San Francisco.
The plaintiff sued for work done on the sloop Nabob & Ruth, and a wharf and lime-kiln, ajl belonging to the defendants.
The defendants McKinley and Garrioch answered, denying each of the allegations of the complaint.
The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, whereupon the defendant McKinley applied to the Court for a new trial, and, in support of his application, filed his own affidavit, alleging that he had been surprised at the trial, by the production of his co-defendant, Mowbray, as a wit ness on behalf of plaintiff. After hearing the counter affidavit of B. F. Byan, attorney for plaintiff, the Court refused to grant a new trial, and the defendants McKinley and Garrioch appealed.
Crockett & Page, for Appellants.
B. F. Byam,, for Eespondent.
The affidavit of surprise is not a ground for a neW trial, after verdict. It is no ground for a new trial that a party is not prepared. (5 Dana, 34; 8 Johns. 842; 15 Johns. 210; 4 Caines, 118.) Or that, upon a new trial, he could contradict a witness. (3 Greenleaf, 77.)

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
This Court has always refused to interfere with the verdict of a jury, where the evidence is dubious or conflicting. Nor, in such case, will we revise the discretion of the Court below, in granting or refusing a new trial.
The assignments of error made in this case are too unsubstantial to require consideration or argument.
Let the judgment be affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.