40 Ind. App. 425 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1907
Appellee recovered judgment for $506.25 on his claim filed in the court below for services alleged to have been rendered the deceased, Hiram Taylor, by said claimant and certain members of pis family. The
Upon this appeal, appellant discusses only the action of the court in permitting appellee’s minor children to testify in his behalf as to their services, and in refusing to grant appellant a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence.
The witnesses whose competency was challenged were neither parties to the issue nor to the record.
The administrator makes oath that before the trial of this cause he made diligent inquiry and search for evidence to support and sustain the allegations of his various answers in said cause, and, to sustain and support the defense in said cause, affiant inquired of all persons that he had reason to believe had any knowledge of any facts, of' evidence that would sustain the defense in said cause; that he made diligent search and inquiry of all persons likely to know or have any knowledge of the facts, and personally interviewed said persons as to their knowledge of the facts and evidence in said cause; that after the trial, to wit, July 3, 1906, he learned for the first time that said Charles D. and Frank Farmer would testify to the facts set out in said affidavits. We need not determine whether the proposed new evidence is cumulative, or whether it would change the result. The affidavit of the administrator does not show diligence on his part to discover the evidence in time to use it on the trial. Diligence is not shown by general allegations of fact. * ‘ The facts constituting the pretended diligence must be set forth
Judgment affirmed.