80 S.E. 1080 | N.C. | 1914
It appears from the record that this appeal was taken for the purpose really of reviewing the former decision of this (136) Court in the same case.
The motion for a new trial, upon the ground of newly discovered testimony, is denied, for the reason that plaintiff has not brought his application within the terms of the rule applicable to such cases. The proposed testimony is cumulative, and it does not appear to us probable that it would cause a reversal of the verdict if a new trial were granted. There is evidence to show that it was accessible to plaintiff by the exercise of proper diligence. For these reasons, and others, which might be stated, the application does not impress us so favorably as to induce the exercise of our sound discretion in plaintiff's behalf. Johnson v. R. R.,
No error.
Cited: Latham v. Fields,