Giles v. Robinson

• Citation: 96 A. 745,114 Me. 552
• Parties: GILES v. ROBINSON et al. ROBINSON et al. v. GILES.
• Decision Date: 08 March 1916
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

96 A. 745

114 Me. 552

GILES

v. ROBINSON et al.

ROBINSON et al.

v. GILES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 8, 1916.

On Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Lincoln County, at Law.

Actions by Byron Giles against Carrie E. Robinson and Myron W. Robinson and by Carrie E. Robinson and Myron W. Robinson against Byron Giles. Verdicts for Giles, and the Robinsons move for new trial for newly discovered evidence. New trial granted.

Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and SPEAR, KING, BIRD, HALEY, and HANSON, JJ.

Cyrus Tupper and James B. Perkins, both of Boothbay Harbor, for plaintiff. A. S. Littlefield, of Rockland, for defendants.

PER CURIAM. These cases grew out of the same transaction, and were tried at nisi and argued before the law court together. Byron Giles of Boothbay brought suit against Carrie E. Robinson and Myron W. Robinson, summer residents of Boothbay Harbor, to recover a balance claimed to be due from constructing a concrete wall across the mouth of the cove, the design of the wall being to make the cove a swimming pool. Carrie E. Robinson brought action against Byron Giles to recover back money paid on account of the work and for other damages. In the discussion of the case Giles will be alluded to as plaintiff, and Robinson, as defendant. The questions presented involved issues of fact. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, Giles, in each case, and the only question before us is whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury, if they believed the plaintiff's testimony, to render a verdict in favor of his contention.

But since the argument of these cases at the law court, a motion for a new trial has been filed, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and the testimony taken and presented to the court for consideration in connection with the evidence in the general motion. The plaintiff urges that this evidence is not newly discovered on the defendants' own statement; that "it did not exist at the time of the trial." But the testimony shows that it did exist at the time of the trial. The quality of the work and material was there in the wall, but could not, at that time, be seen, nor ascertained by physical examination nor proved by any testimony available to the defendants, as, at that time, the plaintiff, the one knowing the facts, denied any deficiency in the workmanship and material, which time and tide have since revealed.

The new evidence, if believed, would seem to be a practical demonstration that the...