Tripler v. Ehehalt

The Superior Court of New York City

Tripler v. Ehehalt

5 Rob. 609

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedFebruary 15, 1866

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Rob. 609 (Tripler v. Ehehalt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tripler v. Ehehalt, 5 Rob. 609 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1866).

Pincite

Opinion

Robertson, Ch. J.

J. The present motion is for a new trial, upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. The action was for an assault and battery; the plaintiff testified that he was 'so much injured by the attack complained of as to be unable to work for some time afterwards. The evidence claimed to be newly discovered is that one of the witnesses examined on the trial, (Hager,) knew, and could ■prove that the plaintiff was at work the next day, and not so seriously injured, and that the defendant was ignorant thereof. The severity of the injury to the plaintiff was therefore, a subject of inquiry and testified toon the trial. It has long been settled that such a fact is not a subject upon which newly discovered evidence is allowed in order to warrant a new trial. (Halsey v. Watson, 1 Qai. 24. 8- 'C. Col. § C. Ca. 160.) It is substantially cumulative evidence. (People v. N. Y. Superior Court, 10 Wend. 286. Brisbane v. Adams, 1 Sandf. 195.)

The motion must be denied, with $10 costs.

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

Robertson, Ch. J.

J. The present motion is for a new trial, upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. The action was for an assault and battery; the plaintiff testified that he was 'so much injured by the attack complained of as to be unable to work for some time afterwards. The evidence claimed to be newly discovered is that one of the witnesses examined on the trial, (Hager,) knew, and could ■prove that the plaintiff was at work the next day, and not so seriously injured, and that the defendant was ignorant thereof. The severity of the injury to the plaintiff was therefore, a subject of inquiry and testified toon the trial. It has long been settled that such a fact is not a subject upon which newly discovered evidence is allowed in order to warrant a new trial. (Halsey v. Watson, 1 Qai. 24. 8- 'C. Col. § C. Ca. 160.) It is substantially cumulative evidence. (People v. N. Y. Superior Court, 10 Wend. 286. Brisbane v. Adams, 1 Sandf. 195.)

The motion must be denied, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Rob. 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tripler-v-ehehalt-nysuperctnyc-1866.