Beebe v. Beebe

2 Mich. N.P. 144

Opinion

By the Court,

Brown, J.

The motion in this case is denied, the showing being deemed insufficient.

One of the grounds relied upon for a new trial was newly discovered evidence, and in support of this ground the following authorities were cited: Hilliard on New Trials, 362, 382, 384; 1 Johns. Cases, 402; 20 Conn., 305; 14 Vt., 414; 7 Dana, 329; 28 Maine, 379; 7 Met. 478; 6 Pick, 114; 18 Vt., 460; 20 Conn., 305; 3 Gra., and Waterman on N. T., 1019.

Contra: It must be made to appear affirmatively that the evi. denee could not have been discovered by due,ordinary or reasonable diligence. Hilliard on New Trials, 378; Robinson vs. Doe, 6 Blackf., 85; Gardner vs. Gardner, 2 Gray, 434; People vs. Mack, 2 Parker, 673; Simpkins vs. Wilson, 11 Ind., 541; Laflin vs. Herrington, 17 Ill., 399; Williams vs. Baldwin, 18 John., 489; Stearns vs. Allen, 18 Vt., 119.

Newly discovered evidence, merely cumulative, is no ground for a new trial. Hilliard on N. T., 180, § 13; Stimpson vs. Wilson, 6 Ind., 474; Ferrin vs. Protection Ins. Co., 11 Ohio, 147; Schlencker vs. Risley, 3 Scam., 483; Smith vs. Schultz, 1 Scam., 499; Jennings vs. Loring, 5 Ind., 250; Gardner vs. Gardner, 2 Gray, 434; Manix vs. Malony, 7 Clark, 81; Gardner vs. Mitchell, 6 Pick., 116; Sawyer vs. Merrill, 10 Pick., 16; Whitbeck vs. Whitbeck, 9 Cow., 266; People vs. S. C. of N. Y., 5 Wend., 114; 10 Id., 85.

Newly discovered evidence, which goes only to impeach the credit or character of a witness, is not suffle ient ground for a new trial. Hilliard on N. T., 385; 6 Blackf., 496; 11 Barb., 215; 2 Denio, 109; 11 Ind., 234; 5 John., 248.