Author Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1908 edition. Excerpt:...have probably changed the verdict." _ b. Admission or Exclusion of Evidence--(i) ADMISSION. Sllrpglfifi at llw admission of proper evidence is generally not ground for a new tria_l._ But the adinission of depositions previously held llii't(llll1SSil)l8,2a or the adiiiissionoi av; deuce where a, stipulation of facts appeared to be exclusive of other evideiicc, may be ground for new trial if the inovant was 1llll)I'Gplil:Gd_ to meet such evidiilice (ii) EXOLUsl01v'. Surprise at the exclusion of iiiadiiiissihlc evidence is se om ground for a. new trial." The rule applies to the exclusion of the testimonyté incompetent witness," to the rejection of documentary evidence or sccon my Testimony suficient to justify continuance.--It has been held that the testimony must have been of sufiicient importance to have justified a. continuance of the case. Peebles 1;. Overton, 6 N. C. 384. Compare Quincey U. Perkins, 76 N. C. 295, where continuance on same ground had been refused. The rule against granting new trials where damages are small applies where a new trial is asked for because of the absence of witnesses. Hodgkinson v. Brown, 3 U. C. Q. B. 461. 23. Miller v. Manhattan R. Co., 73 Hun (N. Y.) 514, 26 N. Y. Suppl. 163; Dowell 1). Dergficld, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 87 S. W. I051. See also infra, III, H, 5, b, (VI). 24. Indiana.----Sullivan 1;. O'Conner, 77 Ind. 149. New York.----High 1;. VVils0n, 2 Johns. 46. Pemwylva-nia.--Voorsanger v. Field, 2 Pa. Dist. 391. South. Carolina.--Mathews 1:. West, 2 Nott & M. 415. Tea:as.--Dempsey 1:. Taylor, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 126, 23 S. W. 220. 25. Santa. Cruz Rock Pavement Co. 17. Bowie, I04 Cal. 286, 37 Pae. 934; Klockenbaum v. Pierson, 22 Cal. 160; Fuller v. Hutcliings,...