Pollock v. Swartz

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Pollock v. Swartz

29 N.E.2d 188, 302 Mass. 604, 1939 Mass. LEXIS 1160

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 10, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 N.E.2d 188 (Pollock v. Swartz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pollock v. Swartz, 29 N.E.2d 188, 302 Mass. 604, 1939 Mass. LEXIS 1160 (Mass. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. Ordinarily a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and an exception will not lie to the denial of such a motion. Madden v. Boston Elevated Railway, 284 Mass. 490, 494. There is nothing in this record to take the case out of the ordinary rule. The judge was not required to believe the affidavits in whole or in part even though they were uncontradicted. Hanson v. Hanson, 258 Mass. 45, 46. Commonwealth v. Millen, 290 Mass. 406, 410. Germain v. Raad, 297 Mass. 73, 75. Even though he accepted them as true, he was not required to find that the evidence therein referred to “was not available to the defendant by the exercise of reasonable diligence and inquiry” for introduction at the trial. In the absence of proof of this fact, it clearly was not error to deny the motion. See Sherman v. Collingwood, 221 Mass. 8, 14; Berggren v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 231 Mass. 173, 176; Nicholas v. Lewis Furniture Co. 292 Mass. 500, 507. Nothing in Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway, 235 Mass. 482, relied on by the defendant, requires a different conclusion. Other considerations bearing on the propriety of the denial of the motion need not be considered. See, however, Sherman v. Collingwood, 221 Mass. 8, 14. Clearly there was no abuse of discretion.

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

Exceptions overruled. Ordinarily a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and an exception will not lie to the denial of such a motion. Madden v. Boston Elevated Railway, 284 Mass. 490, 494. There is nothing in this record to take the case out of the ordinary rule. The judge was not required to believe the affidavits in whole or in part even though they were uncontradicted. Hanson v. Hanson, 258 Mass. 45, 46. Commonwealth v. Millen, 290 Mass. 406, 410. Germain v. Raad, 297 Mass. 73, 75. Even though he accepted them as true, he was not required to find that the evidence therein referred to “was not available to the defendant by the exercise of reasonable diligence and inquiry” for introduction at the trial. In the absence of proof of this fact, it clearly was not error to deny the motion. See Sherman v. Collingwood, 221 Mass. 8, 14; Berggren v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 231 Mass. 173, 176; Nicholas v. Lewis Furniture Co. 292 Mass. 500, 507. Nothing in Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway, 235 Mass. 482, relied on by the defendant, requires a different conclusion. Other considerations bearing on the propriety of the denial of the motion need not be considered. See, however, Sherman v. Collingwood, 221 Mass. 8, 14. Clearly there was no abuse of discretion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.E.2d 188, 302 Mass. 604, 1939 Mass. LEXIS 1160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollock-v-swartz-mass-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack