Moore v. Ewings
| Decision Date | 31 July 1871 |
| Citation | 44 Ga. 354 |
| Parties | JOHN L. MOORE, plaintiff in error. v. JAMES S. EWINGS et al.,administrators of W. A. HOUSTON, defendants in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
New trial. Newly discovered evidence. Before Judge Green. Spalding Superior Court. February Term, 1871.
In 1863, W. A. Houston bought of Moore thirteen bales of cotton, which Moore was to keep and deliver to him at the end of the war. On the 4th of August, 1865, Moore gave Houston his note for $291 00 in currency, with interest from date. Houston sued Moore on this note. He pleaded that the consideration "was a Confederate consideration, worth only fifty for one, " and claimed the benefit of the Relief Act of 1868.
*The evidence of Houston was that four bales were missing when he demanded the cotton, and upon his letting Moore keep one bale, he gave said note in compromise of the claim for the missing cotton. Moore testified to his losses during the war, and said that there was not so much missing as Houston thought; he accounted for the missing cotton, except for one bale taken by him, by bad weather, etc., etc., showed that he was paid for it in Confederate currency, and showed its value at the time of payment. The jury found for the plaintiff the full amount of the note. Moore moved for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was strongly and decidedly against the weight of the evidence, and because of newly discovered evidence. This newly discovered evidence was, by an affidavit by Moore, that five bales of cotton was put with that sold by oversight, of which he had no notice till after the trial. This testimony, he contended, would show that his account of the missing cotton was correct. The new trial was refused, and that is assigned as error.
Peeples & Stewart; Doyal & Nunnally, for plaintiff in error.
Speer & Beck, for defendants.
1. It would, we think, be a decided infringement on the right of jury trial, to reverse this judgment, on the ground that the jury found contrary to the evidence. The most that can be contended for, is, that the weight of the evidence is against the verdict, since there is one witness who, if he is to be believed, states facts demanding just such a verdict. Prima facie, too, the case is with the plaintiff below, since the very giving of the note is an acknowledgment of a debt to the amount specified in the note. The burden of showinga mistake was upon the defendant at the trial. We have no *acquaintance with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. Wyoming Coal Mining Company
...result reasonably certain. (Robbins v. Fowler, 2 Ark. 133; Robinson v. Veal, 79 Ga. 633; Lillie v. State, (Neb.) 100 N.W. 316; Moore v. Ewing, 44 Ga. 354; Dugan Daniels, 64 Ill.App. 90; Sheley v. Sheley, 47 S.W. 1071; Canfield v. Jackson, (Mich.) 70 N.W. 444; Whipple v. New York, 19 R. I. 5......
-
Wright v. State
... ... ground will not be disturbed unless manifestly abused." ... Lakes v. Lakes, supra; Moore v. Ewings, 44 Ga. 354 ... (2). "Alleged newly discovered evidence is no cause for ... a new trial, unless it shall appear that the evidence itself ... ...
- Gunn v. Barry
-
Wright v. State
...and his judgment overruling the motion as to that ground will not be disturbed unless manifestly abused." Lakes v. Lakes, supra; Moore v. Ewings, 44 Ga. 354 (2). "Alleged newly discovered evidence is no cause for a new trial, unless it shall appear that the evidence itself is newly discover......