Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Misc. 217

Katz v. Atfield

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided November 15, 1892

City of New York Municipal Court · decided 1892-11-15

<p>Documentary evidence which, could not he found until after trial, though known of and diligently searched for, is in the nature of newly discovered evidence, and on application setting forth the facts, a new trial will he granted.</p>

Decided 1892-11-15

Fitzsimons, J.

¶1In the event of the payment by appellant’s counsel of the costs imposed by the order of Mr. Justice McCarthy, and the General Term reversing said order, I think that the interests of justice require that a new trial should be had herein.

¶2It appears that the plaintiff diligently searched for and was unable to find the delivery receipts alleged to have been signed by Atfield, until after the trial.

¶3This is in a sense newly discovered evidence, particularly under the circumstances of this case; the same thing may be said of witnesses whose testimony plaintiff was unable to procure at the trial.

¶4The fact that they refuse to make affidavits setting forth their knowledge, is shown, and therefore it is impossible to submit them, because they refuse to make the same under such circumstances.

¶5*218It would be unjust to deny a new trial for the reason that such affidavits are not submitted to us.

¶6We do not believe that the appellant suffered any surprise at the trial, except such as is usually experienced by counsel and their clients upon the rendition of an adverse verdict.

¶7Order appealed from reversed upon condition that the General Term costs and all motion costs imposed and still unpaid be paid within five days after entry of order herein.

¶8If these conditions are not satisfactory, and not complied with, then said order is affirmed, with costs.

¶9Settle order upon notice.

¶10Ehrlich, Ch. J., concurs.

/1/misc/217 · .json · Public domain