¶1After the disposition of this case on the former appeal (104 Minn. 289, 116 N. W. 583) the plaintiff made a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The motion was denied, and under the established rule (Bunker v. United Order of Foresters, 97 Minn. 361, 107 N. W. 392, and cases therein cited) we cannot, ón this record, say that the court abused its discretion. Affirmed.
107 Minn. 572
McAlpine v. Millen
Decided April 23, 1909
Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1909-04-23
<p>Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Dibell, J., denying a new trial.</p>
Relies on McAlpine v. Millen · Bunker v. United Order of Foresters
Affirmed · Decided 1909-04-23