Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. Seitz

Illinois Supreme Court

Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. Seitz

53 Ill. 452

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1870

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 53 Ill. 452 (Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. Seitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. Seitz, 53 Ill. 452 (Ill. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We are of opinion the circuit court made a proper disposition of the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The affidavits of the witnesses, Wheeler and White, do not amount to much. Admit that Wheeler would testify that Seitz had traded the injured mule to White, and had received for him and another mule, a horse and $50. That testimony does not tend to prove that the mule was not injured to the extent of $100. Nor does the testimony of White make such a case for the defendants as would compel a jury to find for them.

Seitz was examined as a witness on the trial, and defendants’ counsel did not cross-examine him. The slightest cross-examination would have brought out all the facts. It is too late, under the circumstances, to ask or expect a new trial.

Taking all the evidence in the record, together with Wheeler’s and White’s added, the weight of evidence is still in favor of the verdict. The evidence of the latter would be merely cumulative, not conclusive. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We are of opinion the circuit court made a proper disposition of the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The affidavits of the witnesses, Wheeler and White, do not amount to much. Admit that Wheeler would testify that Seitz had traded the injured mule to White, and had received for him and another mule, a horse and $50. That testimony does not tend to prove that the mule was not injured to the extent of $100. Nor does the testimony of White make such a case for the defendants as would compel a jury to find for them.

Seitz was examined as a witness on the trial, and defendants’ counsel did not cross-examine him. The slightest cross-examination would have brought out all the facts. It is too late, under the circumstances, to ask or expect a new trial.

Taking all the evidence in the record, together with Wheeler’s and White’s added, the weight of evidence is still in favor of the verdict. The evidence of the latter would be merely cumulative, not conclusive. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Ill. 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toledo-wabash-western-railway-co-v-seitz-ill-1870.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack