72 Ind. 349
Decided November 15, 1880
Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1880-11-15
<p>Practice. — New Trial. — Affidavit.—Bill of Exceptions. — Supreme Court.— Affidavits in support of a motion for a new trial, on account of newly-discovered evidence, must be made a part of the record by a bill of' exceptions, on appeal to the Supreme Court.</p>
Relies on Matlock v. Todd · Berlin v. Oglesbee · Horton v. Wilson
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1880-11-15
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 1965
9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1— The affidavits on which the appellant claims, a new trial, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence,, are not made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions.. Counsel claim no other error. The judgment must therefore be affirmed. Williams v. Potter, post, p. 354; Matlook v. Todd, 19 Ind. 130; Horton v. Wilson, 25 Ind. 316; Burnett v. Overton, 67 Ind. 557; Fryberger v. Perkins, 66 Ind. 19; Berlin v. Oglesbee, 65 Ind. 308; Buskirk’s Practice, 241.
¶2Judgment affirmed, with costs.