Loucheim v. Strause
| Decision Date | 01 January 1880 |
| Parties | LOUCHEIM v. STRAUSE AND ANOTHER. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, La Crosse county.
Cameron, Losey & Bunn, for appellant.
William Hull and Hugh Cameron, for respondents.
There are two sufficient grounds for the reversal of the order setting aside the judgment and granting a new trial in this case: First. The defendants should have tendered an answer setting up a good defence, supported by proper affidavits showing the probability of sustaining it. The judgment was rendered upon frivolous answer, without any leave to answer over, on the eighteenth day of July, 1878. The defendants moved, on the third day of June, 1879, for a vacation of the judgment, and for leave to file an amended answer upon certain affidavits, and such motion was granted without presenting any such amended answer, or any answer. No irregularity in the rendition of the judgment was complained of, and the ground for the motion, as appears from the affidavits, was newly-discovered evidence, so that the granting of the motion was in the discretion of the court, and the case falls clearly within the imperative rule adopted and sanctioned in Levy et al. v. Goldberg, 40 Wis. 308, and in several other cases in this court. Secondly. The affidavits show that on the original trial in the state of Minnesota, which resulted in the judgment herein sued upon, one Louis Schlessinger was a witness, and committed perjury in testifying upon a vital and material question in the cause, and that now, upon a new trial in this action, he will testify to the truth and in favor of the defendants upon such question.
This is all the newly-discovered evidence claimed upon which a new trial was asked, and it hardly amounts to newly-discovered evidence, but is more properly newly-discovered perjury. The evidence of this witness on another trial, in contradiction of his evidence on the same point on the original trial, would be entirely unreliable and not entitled to any weight without corroboration by some credible evidence also newly-discovered, and would not, of itself alone, amount to newly-discovered testimony. He admits in his affidavit having committed, on the original trial upon such point, wilful and corrupt perjury. In such case, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, has application, and on another trial his testimony on such point may be utterly disregarded. Starkie on Evidence, 820, note 1; Callanan v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kivioja
...recanted an earlier sworn statement, thus admitting to perjury. See e.g., Dunlavy, 21 Wis.2d at 114, 124 N.W.2d 73; Loucheine v. Strouse, 49 Wis. 623, 6 N.W. 360 (1880). In Loucheine, which considered a recantation in the context of a motion for a new trial, we explained our view [t]he evid......
-
Hedger v. State
...the motion for a new trial on the grounds stated by that court and hereinbefore quoted. Conradt v. Sixbee, 21 Wis. 383;Loucheine v. Strouse, 49 Wis. 623, 6 N. W. 360;Keeley v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 139 Wis. 448, 121 N. W. 167;Goldworthy v. Linden, 75 Wis. 24, 43 N. W. 656;Mueller v. Pew, ......
-
State v. Sims
...affidavits of the sort here involved have been characterized as newly discovered perjury, not newly discovered evidence. Loucheim v. Strause, 49 Wis. 623, 6 N.W. 360. It should not be overlooked that Davis is serving a life sentence for his participation in the crime. He has little to lose ......
-
Mickoleski v. Becker
...trial, based on newly discovered evidence. Such evidence is not newly discovered evidence but newly discovered perjury. Loucheine v. Strouse, 49 Wis. 623, 6 N.W. 360;Keeley v. Great Northern R. Co., 139 Wis. 448, 121 N.W. 167; 46 C.J. p. 231, sec. 186.’ The order vacating and setting aside ......