State v. Locke
| Decision Date | 31 March 1858 |
| Citation | 26 Mo. 603 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Respondent, v. LOCKE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. If a new trial be sought on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it ought to appear not only that the evidence so discovered is material but that it is of such a character that it would, i introduced, probably produce a different result.
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
Cline & Jamison, for appellant.
C. G. Mauro, (circuit attorney,) for the State.
The only point made in this court for the reversal of the judgment is the overruling of the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The defendant was indicted and convicted for passing counterfeit money. One witness testified that the defendant passed a counterfeit bill on the Bank of Belleville on a Saturday night, in the month of August, 1856. Another stated that he passed a similar bill on a Saturday night, in September, and a third testified that he offered to pass a like bill on a Sunday morning, in September, when he was arrested.
The affidavits filed in support of the motion state that the defendant came to a house on Second street, in St. Louis, on the evening of the 9th of August, 1856, and remained there all night. None of the witnesses stated that the offence was committed on the 9th of August, and it is not perceived that such evidence could have had any effect on the trial. If new evidence is discovered, to authorize a new trial it ought to appear not only that it is material, but that it would probably produce a different result. (3 Graham & Waterman, New Trials, 1041.)
All the judges concurring, the judgment will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mirrielees v. Wabash Railroad Company
...new trial" was filed out of time and could not have been considered by the lower court. Newly-discovered evidence must be material. State v. Locke, 26 Mo. 603; Shaw Beach, 58 Mo. 107; Culbertson v. Hill, 87 Mo. 556. The third ground mentioned in the motion merely offered evidence, which, at......
-
Albert v. Seiler
...cumulative, but material, and would have changed the result. If material, a new trial should have been given. State v. Locke, 58 Mo. 107; 26 Mo. 603. The surprise was as to facts. There was element of neglect, as to the last moment the plaintiff was expected to arrive, but was sick and coul......
-
Maloy v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacifio Ry. Co.
... ... Rucker v. Eddings, 7 Mo. 115; Brown v. Burns, 8 Mo. 26; Crow v. Marshall, 15 Mo. 499; Owen v. Reilly, 20 Mo. 603; State v. Porter, 26 Mo. 603; Johnston v. Mason, 27 Mo. 511; Dozier v. Jerman, 30 Mo. 220; Seibert v. Allen, 61 Mo. 482; Tiernay v. Spiva, 76 Mo. 279. (2) ... ...
-
Weadley v. Toney
... ... Because of this new evidence alone the appellant ... should be granted a new trial. State v. Ray, 53 Mo ... 345; State v. Smith, 65 Mo. 313; Shaw v ... Besch, 58 Mo. 107 ... ADAMS & FIELD, and R. T. HOLT, for the ... probably follow. Richardson v. Farm, 36 Mo. 46; ... Goff v. Mulholland, 33 Mo. 203; State v ... McLaughlin, 27 Mo. 111; State v. Locke, 26 Mo ... 603; Shaw v. Besch, 58 Mo. 107 ... III ... It is within the discretion of the trial court to grant a ... motion ... ...