Ela v. Ela
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Petitions for new trials, on tlie ground of newly discovered evidence. The cases are reported in 70 N H. 163. Transferred from the April term, 1902, of the superior court by Peaslee, J. The defendant alleged that he had in his possession newly discovered evidence tending to prove (1) that there was a statute of Alabama under which the plaintiffs were not entitled to any part of the rents ; (2) that the rents paid were in fact less than found by the court at the former trial;…
Read the full summary
Petitions for new trials, on tlie ground of newly discovered evidence. The cases are reported in 70 N H. 163. Transferred from the April term, 1902, of the superior court by Peaslee, J. The defendant alleged that he had in his possession newly discovered evidence tending to prove (1) that there was a statute of Alabama under which the plaintiffs were not entitled to any part of the rents ; (2) that the rents paid were in fact less than found by the court at the former trial; (3) that the claim which was the subject of suit in the second case had been released. The petitions were granted,…
1Opinion
By the record as amended since the motion for rehearing, it clearly appears that there was no evidence that a further hearing would be equitable, except upon the issue as to rent in the case of James Ela, and the issues as to rent and release in the case of Jacob Ela. It follows that the new trial should be limited accordingly. Lisbon v. Lyman, 49 N.H. 553,582; Cox v. Leviston, 66 N.H. 167.
The exception to the denial of the plaintiffs' motion to limit the, scope of the new trial is sustained. The other exceptions are overruled.
Case discharged.
All concurred.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lisbon v. LymanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870
- Cox v. LevistonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889