Conradt v. Sixbee
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Jefferson County. Action to recover balance due for 122 days’ work alleged to bave been done for tbe defendant between May 1st and October 29tb, 1864. Answer, tbat plaintiff bad labored for defendant only 53 1-2 days, for wbicb be bad been fully paid. It was claimed tbat tbe remainder of tbe time named in tbe complaint, plaintiff was in tbe employ of one John Kimball, and not of defendant.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Jefferson County. Action to recover balance due for 122 days’ work alleged to bave been done for tbe defendant between May 1st and October 29tb, 1864. Answer, tbat plaintiff bad labored for defendant only 53 1-2 days, for wbicb be bad been fully paid. It was claimed tbat tbe remainder of tbe time named in tbe complaint, plaintiff was in tbe employ of one John Kimball, and not of defendant. Plaintiff testified in accordance witb tbe complaint; while tbe testimony of defendant and said John Kimball-sustained tbe allegations of tbe answer. Yerdict for tbe…
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
It is familiar doctrine that motions for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence are received with caution. And when such newly discovered evidence consists, as in this case, of admissions or declarations of a party, there should be a reasonable probability that such evidence would produce a different verdict, before a new trial should be granted. In view of all the facts of this case, we do not think it proba*385ble that a different result would be obtained if another trial should be had. 5 S. & R., 41; 6 Greenl., 479; 6 Pick., 114.
By the Court. — The order of the circuit court is…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hedger v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
- Anderson v. SparksWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Grace v. McArthurWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
- Newton v. GardnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869