Hopkins v. Watson
This text of 74 P. 233 (Hopkins v. Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is a proceeding in error to reverse the judgment of the district court in overruling a motion for a new trial, filed nearly sixty days after the trial, because of misconduct of certain members of the jury and newly-discovered evidence. A motion for a new trial because of the misconduct of the jury should be filed at the term at which the cause is tried and within three days after the verdict or decision was rendered, unless unavoidably prevented. (Gen. Stat. 1901, §4756.) There is no showing that the plaintiff was unavoidably prevented from filing hi& motion within the time prescribed by the statute.
The evidence introduced at the trial by the plaintiff is not [859]*859before this court, and it is impossible to say that tbe newly-discovered evidence was not merely cumulative. This court, in Kirby v. Childs, 10 Kan. 639, said:
“ Where a motion for a new trial is made on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, and none of the testimony offered on the trial is preserved, it is impossible for this court to say that such newly-discovered evidence is not merely cumulative.” (See, also, Clark v. Hall, 10 Kan. 80.)
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
74 P. 233, 67 Kan. 858, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-watson-kan-1903.