Munden v. Casey
| Decision Date | 31 October 1885 |
| Citation | 93 N.C. 97 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHN MUNDEN v. MATTHEW CASEY, JR. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
CIVIL ACTION tried before MacRae, Judge, at Spring Term, 1885, of Superior Court of JOHNSTON county.
The complaint charges the defendant with uttering certain malicious and defamatory words, specifically set out in several articles, imputing to the plaintiff the taking a false oath in a judicial trial, wherein he was examined and testified as a witness. The answer admits the speaking the words, believing them to be true, but denies that they were spoken maliciously, or had injuriously affected the plaintiff's reputation. Upon issues submitted to the jury and considered under instructions, to which no exception was taken, they found in favor of the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at one thousand dollars. After verdict, and during the term, defendant's counsel asked for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence of the unsoundness of the mind of the defendant, and read several affidavits in which such opinion was expressed, in support of the application, the information of his mental condition not being received until after the trial. Some of the affiants express the belief that the defendant, when in a state of excitement, was not responsible for his acts.
The Court declined to interfere with the verdict and the defendant appealed. In this court he proposes to offer a further affidavit of additional testimony which has come to the knowledge of counsel since making up of the appeal, of the same general import as the others.
Messrs. Reade, Busbee & Busbee, for the plaintiff .
Messrs. Pou & Massey and Geo. V. Strong, for the defendants .
SMITH, C. J., (after stating the case as above).
It is settled by the ruling in Carson v. Dillinger, 90 N. C., 226, in which case the subject underwent a careful and full consideration, that the refusal to grant a new trial upon the ground of evidence since discovered and made known, or the granting of it by the Judge, rested in his sound discretion and was not subject to review.
The authorities are therein discussed and the principles deduced, from which we have no disposition to depart, are decisive of the present appeal.
Nor can we entertain the same motion, made originally in this Court, because additional evidence, merely cumulative, has been obtained since the appeal. This might lead to the anomalous result of a judgment here in direct conflict with an unreversed judgment in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Casey
...in his ruling, it would not be subject to review on appeal. State v. De Graff, supra; Fleming v. R. R., 168 N.C. 248, 84 S.E. 270; Munden v. Casey, 93 N.C. 97. It the ruling in a number of cases that, when the matter or new evidence is discovered during the term, the motion must be made to ......
-
Sanford v. National Council, Junior Order of United American Mechanics
...for a new trial, because of newly discovered evidence, will not be reviewed, as it involved the exercise of discretion, citing Munden v. Casey, 93 N.C. 97, and Flowers Alford, 111 N.C. 248, 16 S.E. 319; and in Horton v. Railway, 169 N.C. 108, 85 S.E. 218, that such a ruling was still discre......
-
Sanford v. Nat'l Council
...for a new trial, because of newly discovered evidence, will not be reviewed, as it involved the exercise of discretion, citing Munden v. Casey, 93 N. C. 97, and Flowers v. Alford, 111 N. C. 248, 16 S. E. 319; and in Horton v. Railway, 169) N. C. 108, 85 S. E. 218, that such a ruling was sti......
-
Fleming v. Wash. &
...of the judge, and, having been denied by him, the decision is not reviewable here. Flowers v. Alford, 111 N. C. 248, 16 S. E. 319; Munden v. Casey, 93 N. C. 97. No ...