Court Opinion

ID: 9865441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 17:42:27.099268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:39.614286
License: Public Domain

Houston, J.,

dissented, and remarked that an objection to the competency of a witness discovered after the trial, is not a sufficient ground of itself for granting a new trial; but it may have some weight with the Court when the party applying appears to have merits or other grounds for it. 1 T. R. 407. In ordinary cases where the newly discovered evidence consists of admissions made by the party against whom it is intended to be used, the motion will not be granted; but when the suit is against executors or administrators on a stale demand, a motion for a new trial will be granted, and in such case the Court will not be as strict in *78inquiring into the discrepancies between the testimony given and that offered to be produced on the second trial, but will leave the credibility of the witnesses to be passed upon by the jury. 4 Wend. 579. The fact that the party-moving for the new trial was an administrator, was recognized as a consideration among others, for granting it in the case of Fitzgibbon's Adm’r. v. Kinney, 3 Harr. 72. For these reasons he thought the motion should be granted.
blew trial refused.