Heilner v. Brown
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, "Washington County. An affidavit on motion for a new trial that is not sworn to is not sufficient. (McDermaid v. Russell, 41 Ill. 489; Ladow v. Groom, 1 Denio, 431; People ¶. Sutherland, 81 N. Y. 5-8; Knight v. Elliott, 22 Minn. 551; Tunis v. Withrow, 10 Iowa, 307, 77 Am.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, "Washington County. An affidavit on motion for a new trial that is not sworn to is not sufficient. (McDermaid v. Russell, 41 Ill. 489; Ladow v. Groom, 1 Denio, 431; People ¶. Sutherland, 81 N. Y. 5-8; Knight v. Elliott, 22 Minn. 551; Tunis v. Withrow, 10 Iowa, 307, 77 Am. Dec. 117.) An affidavit on motion for a new trial is not sufficient that alleges “that affiant could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced said evidence at such former trial.” It must set forth the acts constituting the diligence used, or reason for not performing such acts,…
1Opinion of the CourtHays, C. J.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. The grounds of the motion for a new trial were irregularity in the proceedings of the court, newly discovered *265evidence, insufficiency of the evidence, and errors inlaw. The appellants contend that the affidavit of J. Durkheimer, produced and read in the court below on the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, was insufficient and void on account of not having a proper jurat thereon. It was read and treated as an affidavit in the court below without objection, and counsel cannot be heard to raise such an…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Welch v. BiggerIdaho Supreme Court · 1913