Crane v. . Carswell

169 S.E. 160, 204 N.C. 571, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 199
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 26, 1933·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

No appeal lies to this Court from the discretionary determination of an application for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 316. But where the applicant fails to make out a showing of “newly discovered evidence,” as this phrase is defined in the law (S. v. Casey, 201 N. C., 620, 161 S. E., 81), no occasion arises for the exercise of the court’s discretion. Stilley v. Planing Mills, 161 N. C., 517, 77 S. E., 760. We agree with the defendant that plaintiff’s showing on his application for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence was insufficient to invoke a discretionary ruling in his behalf. Stilley v. Planing Mills, supra.

Error.

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

Crane v. . Carswell, 169 S.E. 160, 204 N.C. 571, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 199 (N.C. 1933).

169 S.E. 160 (Crane v. . Carswell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McCulloh v. Catawba College
146 S.E.2d 467 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
State v. . Speller
47 S.E.2d 537 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
State v. . Todd
32 S.E.2d 313 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Sanger v. . Gattis
19 S.E.2d 625 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
State v. . Rodgers
8 S.E.2d 927 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Bullock v. . Williams
195 S.E. 791 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Jarrett v. Winston Mutual Life Insurance
180 S.E. 663 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
State v. . Ferrell
175 S.E. 91 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
State v. . Edwards
172 S.E. 399 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)