Legal Opinion

Alexander v. Richmond Cedar Works

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 9, 1919PublishedCited by 12 opinions

PbtitioN for a "new trial for newly discovered evidence on appeal from Bond, Jat the November Term, 1918, of Tyrrell.

1Per curiam

This is a petition for a new trial in the above entitled case, upon the ground of newly discovered testimony. The petition is denied for the following reasons:

1. The proposed testimony appears to be entirely cumulative, there being no new kind of evidence offered, and besides, there is nothing to reasonably indicate that the result will be changed.

2. There is no- acceptable excuse given for the delay in procuring the new testimony, and no sufficient reason assigned for not having presented it at the trial of the action.

3. But another reason, and the main one, is that petitioners do not…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Roberts v. . AllmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  2. State v. . DegraffSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
  3. McLeod v. . GoochSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  4. State v. . StarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
  5. Mottu v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. . CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  2. State v. . LeaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  3. State v. CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  4. Wynne v. . ConradSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  5. Wynne v. ConradSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API