Inhabitants of Warren v. Inhabitants of Hope
| Decision Date | 01 May 1830 |
| Citation | 6 Me. 479 |
| Parties | The Inhabitants of WARREN, petitioners for review, v. The Inhabitants of HOPE |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
At the hearing of this case, Allen, for the petitioners, offered as witnesses several persons whose names, and the testimony expected from them, were not mentioned in the petition.
Greenleaf and Ruggles, on the other side, objected that the respondents had come prepared to meet only the facts and witnesses stated in the petition; and that to admit new matter, or to call other persons to testify, would render the notice given to the respondents altogether illusive. The petitioners had alleged that they had " other witnesses" to the same facts. But THE COURT held them to the witnesses, as well as to the facts, named in the petition; and afterwards delivered their opinion to the following effect.
We must deny a review in this case. The petition does not disclose any ground for granting one. The new evidence therein referred to is all merely cumulative, and designed to strengthen the evidence given on the former trial. Proof of this kind may frequently be procured on both sides; but to grant reviews or new trials, in such cases, would lead to unreasonable delay, and be a plain disregard of the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium. In governing ourselves by the application of the above stated principle, we are acting in concert with the courts in New York and Massachusetts. As applications for new trials and reviews, on account of newly discovered evidence, are every year becoming more frequent, we have thought proper to avail ourselves of this opportunity to state, for the information and government of all concerned, the principles by which the court are regulated in cases of this kind.
On hearing upon a petition for review, the petitioner will not be permitted to offer testimony as to any newly discovered evidence, except that which may be stated in the petition.
No new trial or review will be granted on account of newly discovered evidence which is merely of a cumulative nature. But the following kinds of proof may be considered as exceptions to the general rule; and furnish ground for a new trial or review, viz:--
1. That a witness, whose testimony on the trial was in its tendency against the interest of the petitioner, has ascertained that he testified under a mistake, and that the facts do not exist as he testified that they did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Larson
...129 Mo.App. 546; Rickroad v. Martin, 43 Mo.App. 597; Beveridge v. Chetlain, 1 Ill.App. 231; Rolling Mill Co. v. State, 54 Ga. 635; Warren v. Hope, 6 Me. 479; Cooper v. Vaughan, 107 Ark. 498; Trummier Darden, 61 S.C. 220; Dudgeon v. Hackley, 182 S.W. 1004; Uhl v. Small, 54 Kan. 651. Inghram ......
-
Harden v. Card
... ... 219; ... Alger v. Merritt, 16 Iowa 121; Inhabitants, &c., ... v. Inhabitants, 6 Me. 479; Weber v. Weber, 5 ... N.Y.S ... ...
-
Pickering v. Cassidy
...of the words "accident, mistake, or misfortune," as used in the statute, can be illustrated by some of the decided cases. In Warren v. Hope, 6 Me. 479, it was said that an exception to the rule refusing new trials was where a witness, whose testimony was against the petitioner, subsequently......
-
Jackson v. Gould
... ... to prove by witnesses. See Warren v. Hope, 6 Me ... In ... Boston v. Robbins, 116 Mass. 313, the ... to inhabitants temporarily absent, is equally obvious and ... strong. The earlier ... ...