From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Cushman

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Jun 1, 1880
59 N.H. 519 (N.H. 1880)

Opinion

Decided June, 1880.

The question, whether a defect of proof in evidence addressed to the court can be supplied after verdict by newly discovered evidence, will not ordinarily be considered on a motion for a rehearing: it is a question to be decided at the trial term.

MOTION, for a rehearing of the case reported ante 27. The plaintiff, since the former decision, having discovered the deed from Haines to Ladd granting the driftway, now moves for a rehearing, and asks to be allowed to supply the missing link in his chain of title.

Frink, for the plaintiff.

A. R. Hatch, for the defendant.


the court is of opinion that the motion for a rehearing should be denied. At the trial term, if it appears that the newly discovered evidence raises nothing for the consideration of the jury, but a mere question for the court, by which the former trial could not be affected in a manner unjust to the defendant, the presiding judge will determine whether justice requires a new trial of this point only by the court, and make such order as justice requires. No question of mere law is now presented which we can see must necessarily be tried by the court, and the question raised is sent to the trial term. Gamsby v. Columbia, 58 N.H. 60.

Motion for rehearing denied.

SMITH, J., did not sit: the others concurred.


Summaries of

Smith v. Cushman

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Jun 1, 1880
59 N.H. 519 (N.H. 1880)
Case details for

Smith v. Cushman

Case Details

Full title:SMITH v. CUSHMAN

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham

Date published: Jun 1, 1880

Citations

59 N.H. 519 (N.H. 1880)

Citing Cases

Richardson v. Railroad

Ordinarily the question whether a defect of proof in evidence dressed to the court can be supplied after…

Merrill v. Perkins

The defendants' motion raised a question of fact to be determined at the trial term, and the case shows no…