Ruckle v. American Car & Foundry Co.

WITMER, District Judge.

The defendant comes with two motions; one for judgment non obstante veredicto, and one for new trial. The latter is urged for two reasons:

“First, because of the false testimony of the plaintiff in respect to the injuries resulting from his falling into the ditch; and, second, because the jury had received information that the defendant was indemnified by an insurance company, which doubtless prejudiced their minds and overwhelmed their judgment”

[1] In considering these reasons it will not be amiss to recall that, while it is true that motions for a new trial are…