Peagram v. . King

9 N.C. 295

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: December 5, 1822
• Status: Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We do not entertain this bill barely upon the ground that the. Complainant lias discovered evidence since the trial at Law, (and which he of course could not then avail himself of,) but also from the peculiar nature of that evidence, it going to fix a perjury upon the principal witness in the trial at Law. It is therefore very unlike those cases where the newly discovered evidence, goes to support a charge made in the case at Law, by the applicant, or to repel a charge made against him. But it resembles those cases whore the, principal witness on a trial at Law, has been afterwards convicted of a perjury in his evidence in that case. In nucís cases, relief should be granted some way or other, at least we will not dismiss the bill, but will retain it sintO a hearing. It is not sufficient .that the newly discovered evidence, goes to repel your adversary’s charge» but it must destroy his proofs.