Case Name: STATE, Respondent, v. GONSOR, Appellant
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1936-11-16
Citations: 64 S.D. 642
Docket Number: File No. 7913
Parties: STATE, Respondent, v. GONSOR, Appellant.
Judges: All the Judges concur.
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 642–642

Head Matter:
STATE, Respondent, v. GONSOR, Appellant.
(269 N. W. 568.)
(File No. 7913.
Opinion filed November 16 1936.)
/. G. McFarland and K. C. Paterson, both of Watertown, for Appellant.
Walter Conway, Attorney General, Laurence Dimsdale, Assistant Attorney -General, and LeuUis W. Bickneil, State’s Attorney, of Webster, for the State.

Opinion:
PEiR 'CURIAM.
The defendant was -convicted under an information containing two counts: First, -driving while intoxicated; second, failing to stop- the automobile which he was driving after injuring a person. The only -question presented on this appeal is whether a new trial should be granted upon the grounds of newly discovered evidence. We have carefully considered the entire record and especially the affidavits submitted in support of a motion for a new trial. W1e are- of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to- grant the motion.
The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
All the Judges concur.