State ex rel. Gruenig v. Haley

South Dakota Supreme Court

State ex rel. Gruenig v. Haley

162 N.W. 366, 38 S.D. 568, 1917 S.D. LEXIS 58

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedApril 17, 1917

DocketFile No. 4094

StatusPublished

This text of 162 N.W. 366 (State ex rel. Gruenig v. Haley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Gruenig v. Haley, 162 N.W. 366, 38 S.D. 568, 1917 S.D. LEXIS 58 (S.D. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

McCOY, J.

Ln this proceeding the defendant was charged with being the father of' a bastard child, of which one Bertha Gruenig is the mother. On the trial the issue as to- whether or not defendant was the father of said child was submitted to- the jury and answered in the negative. The state then moved for a new trial, on the grounds of errors of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by plaintiff, newly discovered evidence, and disregard of the evidence by the jury, showing' that the jury was unduly influenced by prejudice. This appeal is from the order granting a new trial.

It is contended that the learned trial court abused its discretion in the granting- of said motion. We are of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. It will serve no useful purpose to further detail the record. It has been well settled by the former decisions of this court that the granting of a new trial will not be reversed, except in a -clear case of an abuse of discretion. No such showing appears in this case.

The order appeálwl from is therefore affirmed.

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

McCOY, J.

Ln this proceeding the defendant was charged with being the father of' a bastard child, of which one Bertha Gruenig is the mother. On the trial the issue as to- whether or not defendant was the father of said child was submitted to- the jury and answered in the negative. The state then moved for a new trial, on the grounds of errors of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by plaintiff, newly discovered evidence, and disregard of the evidence by the jury, showing' that the jury was unduly influenced by prejudice. This appeal is from the order granting a new trial.

It is contended that the learned trial court abused its discretion in the granting- of said motion. We are of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. It will serve no useful purpose to further detail the record. It has been well settled by the former decisions of this court that the granting of a new trial will not be reversed, except in a -clear case of an abuse of discretion. No such showing appears in this case.

The order appeálwl from is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 N.W. 366, 38 S.D. 568, 1917 S.D. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-gruenig-v-haley-sd-1917.