Woodfolk v. Tate
| Decision Date | 31 October 1857 |
| Citation | 25 Mo. 597 |
| Parties | WOODFOLK, Respondent, v. TATE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where, during the pending of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence, a cause is removed to another circuit by an act of the Legislature transferring the county in which the suit is pending to such other circuit, the judge of such other circuit should not decline disturbing the verdict, and refuse to grant a new trial, on the ground that the judge, not having heard the evidence as delivered by the witnesses on the stand, had not had the opportunity which the jury had of deciding upon the credibility of the witnesses. If embarrassed from such cause, the court should grant a new trial.
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court.
Lipscomb, for appellant.
the trial was had. (16 Mo. 393.) But it is submitted that this court is not in this case called upon to control the discretion of the Circuit Court as to the weight of testimony. That court expressly declined acting upon the question, because the judge then sitting was not the judge before whom the cause was tried.
T. L. and R. E. Anderson, for respondent.
I. The judge of the Circuit Court properly refused to disturb the verdict. The presumptions of law are in favor of the verdict.
This case was tried in the Marion Circuit Court, at the July term, 1855, before Judge Wells. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and thereupon the defendant filed his motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that the court admitted illegal testimony. The motion was not heard by the judge who tried the cause, but was continued until the next term, and in the mean time Marion county, by an act of the general assembly, was included in another circuit, in which Judge Redd presided. At the February term, 1856, the motion was called and overruled for the reason, as assigned by the court, “that the cause having been tried before Judge Wells, and not having heard the evidence as delivered by the witnesses on the stand, and not having the opportunity which the jury had of deciding upon the credibility of the witnesses, by the manner in which that evidence was given, the court is unwilling to disturb the verdict on the ground that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Messino
...civil actions. Section 1463, supra, is the same as Section 2171, Revised Statutes 1889. Prior to its enactment it had been held in Woolfolk v. Tate, 25 Mo. 597, and Cocker v. Cocker, 56 Mo. 180, that an incoming judge's only course when called upon to pass upon a motion for new trial filed ......
-
State ex rel. Priddy v. Gibson
... ... High, Extraordinary Remedies, secs. 37, 38; R.S. 1899, sec ... 731; Consaul v. Liddell, 7 Mo. 250; Woolfolk v ... Tate, 25 Mo. 597; Fulkerson v. Houts, 55 Mo ... 301; Cocker v. Cocker, 56 Mo. 180; State ex rel ... v. Perkins, 139 Mo. 106; Richardson v ... ...
-
State v. Messino
... ... 1463, supra, is the same as Section 2171, Revised Statutes ... 1889. Prior to its enactment it had been held in Woolfolk ... v. Tate, 25 Mo. 597, and Cocker v. Cocker, 56 ... Mo. 180, that an incoming judge's only course when called ... upon to pass upon a motion for new trial ... ...
- Woodard v. Bush