Montgomery v. State

4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 199
CourtLucas Circuit Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 199 (Montgomery v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Lucas Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Montgomery v. State, 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 199 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1894).

Opinion

Haynes, J.

In this case, a petition in error was filed in this court to reverse the judgment of the court of common pleas, in the conviction upon the indictment that was returned by the grand jury against Samuel Montgomery for an alleged asault and battery upon one Hannan (Feitz). A motion for a new trial was filed, on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, on the ground of newly discovered evidence material to the defendant which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and that the verdict is contrary to law. On this second ground of the motion the affidavit was filed of Mrs. J. A. McCune, stating certain matters which were denied by Mrs. Feitz.

Two affidavits were filed and submitted, but the court overruled the motion on that point, as well as on the others. That is urged upon the part of the counsel, in the argument of this case, as a ground for a new trial which cannot be considered by this court, for the reason that the evidence is not properly before us. A rather common erroris, that after a motion of that kind is filed and affidavits have been filed, that the affidavits come up with the papers in the case and as part of the record.

We have had on other occasions in other counties, to pass upon this question. The only way these affidavits can properly be brought before the court is by bill of exceptions, otherwise they become no part of the record. It is sufficient to say that if they had been before us, we have simply an affidavit upon one side and an affidavit denying upon the other, and we are not disposed to hold that the court erred in refusing a new trial upon those.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

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

Related

Simes v. Dayton-Xenia Ry Co.
36 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-state-ohcirctlucas-1894.