Hines v. Helm

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Hines v. Helm

6 Ky. Op. 231, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 525

DecidedDecember 19, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ky. Op. 231 (Hines v. Helm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hines v. Helm, 6 Ky. Op. 231, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 525 (Ky. Ct. App. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The evidence discovered after the trial was to’ the very point in issue on which appellants had adduced evidence and made their defense, and the rule in such cases is that new trials for discovery of parol evidence to the facts in issue and to which evidence had been offered on the trial should be seldom granted, even<(where there had been diligence in preparing the defense. In this case, Thomas, one of the partners and a defendant, knew that Baker was engaged by the firm' to haul the wheat and that he would prove the facts which he stated he would prove, and he failed to have him summoned or to give Hines the information. Nor does it appear that Hines was absent and could not have known what Baker would prove by even slight attention to the business. They have not man[232]*232ifested reasonable diligence in the preparation of their defense and the judgment must be affirmed.

W. Underwood, for appellants. Rodes & Clark, for appellee.

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

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The evidence discovered after the trial was to’ the very point in issue on which appellants had adduced evidence and made their defense, and the rule in such cases is that new trials for discovery of parol evidence to the facts in issue and to which evidence had been offered on the trial should be seldom granted, even<(where there had been diligence in preparing the defense. In this case, Thomas, one of the partners and a defendant, knew that Baker was engaged by the firm' to haul the wheat and that he would prove the facts which he stated he would prove, and he failed to have him summoned or to give Hines the information. Nor does it appear that Hines was absent and could not have known what Baker would prove by even slight attention to the business. They have not man[232]*232ifested reasonable diligence in the preparation of their defense and the judgment must be affirmed.

W. Underwood, for appellants. Rodes & Clark, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ky. Op. 231, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-helm-kyctapp-1872.