Bishop v. Kingston Gas & Electric Co.

147 A.D. 920, 131 N.Y.S. 1039
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 15, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 147 A.D. 920 (Bishop v. Kingston Gas & Electric Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bishop v. Kingston Gas & Electric Co., 147 A.D. 920, 131 N.Y.S. 1039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The motion for a new trial was granted on the ground that the plaintiff since the trial had discovered that one Walker would give evidence material upon the question of defendant having properly maintained its electric light wires. The defendant produced the affidavit of Walker stating that he would not testify as claimed. To authorize the granting of a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence it must reasonably appear that such evidence would change the result of the former trial. It must be assumed that Walker would testify as stated in his affidavit. This being so his evidence would not change the result of the former trial. The order must, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred, except Betts, J., dissenting. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bove v. Croton Falls Construction Co.
82 Misc. 202 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 A.D. 920, 131 N.Y.S. 1039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-kingston-gas-electric-co-nyappdiv-1911.