Case Name: Melinus C. Levingsworth et al. ads. John Fox
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1804
Citations: 2 Bay 520
Docket Number: 
Parties: Melinus C. Levingsworth et al. ads. John Fox.
Judges: Present, Gkzmke, Waties, Bay, Brevard and Lee, fudges.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 520–521

Head Matter:
Melinus C. Levingsworth et al. ads. John Fox.
Columbia,
1804.
mere a jury themselves'to presumefraud where none is proved, the court will grant a new due execution pends ujona" strict * adha-rence to the rales of eví-denee.
TRESPASS to try title to lands in Edgefield district, Verdict for plaintiff. Motion for a new trial.
This was an action of trespass to try titles to land on L * Savannah river, m which the Jury took upon them to find . . . - , , r i that a release produced and given m evidence by defendant, was fraudulent, without any proof of its being so, or of any circumstances, from which it could be strongly in-r j
See the ease Rutherford v. The Sfieriff of Charleston Ristrictnnte. Where it appears that a witness,sworn andexaminedj, was deeply iu-terestedinihe event of a cause after ifc is tried, (although upon, his voir diret he swore he was not,) it is a good ground to order auew trial.

Opinion:
Upon this ground the court, after argument, ordered a new trial, as fraud is never to be presumed, unless the circumstances are so strong as to leave no doubt to the contrary, as was determined in the case of Rutherford v. The Sheriff of Charleston District, in 1801; and also because one Rountree, a witness produced by the plaintiff on the trial, appeared, since the cause was tried, to be deeply interested in the event of the suit, (having a claim to part of she same lands in dispute,) although in court he swore upon his voir dire, that he was not in the least interested in the case, one way or the other.
Rule for new trial made absolute.
Present, Gkzmke, Waties, Bay, Brevard and Lee, fudges.