Court Opinion

ID: 9299381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:05:57.895943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:37.547411
License: Public Domain

BY THE COURT.
This is a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, upon the ground of material evidence discovered since the trial. We are satisfied that the newly .discovered evidence was not known at the time of the trial, although the defendants’ counsel, upon seeing the New-York commission, which only came to hand a few days before the trial, suspected, from some parts of it, that some useful information might be collected. But this would not have been a good reason for continuing the cause; and as the counsel differ, with respect to what passed between them at the bar, we cannot say that Mr. Dallas understood that his opponents would have consented to a postponement, although we are well satisfied, from their declarations, that they would have so consented. But, certainly, he had no ground for insisting upon it.
As to the materiality of the evidence, we cannot positively decide, nor, perhaps, would it be proper now to give a positive opinion about it. It may be explained, but at present it appears to have a considerable bearing upon the point on which the cause turns, and we think it ought to be submitted to a jury.
Rule, for a new trial, absolute.