From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Van Tassell v. New York, Etc., R. Co.

New York Common Pleas — General Term
Nov 1, 1892
1 Misc. 312 (N.Y. Misc. 1892)

Opinion

November, 1892.

Artemas B. Smith, for plaintiff (respondent).

Charles Steele, for defendant (appellant).


The motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence and surprise, was properly denied, and for the facts transpiring on the trial, reference may be had to the opinion on the appeal from the judgment in this action, which is herewith handed down.

The alleged newly discovered evidence is not such in fact. It consists of the trainbook kept by the conductor of the train running from Greycourt to Newburgh, on August 22, 1888, the day of the accident of which plaintiff complained, the trainbook kept by the conductor of the train leaving Newburgh on the day after the accident with the car, the identity of which, with the car upon which plaintiff claimed to have been injured, defendant sought to establish on the trial, the waybill, and the receipt of the person to whom the carload of sheep was consigned, and it conclusively appears that these trainbooks were kept, and the other instruments taken by the defendant in the regular course of its business as forwarders of freight, and retained in its custody, and subject to its control. It appears, therefore, that defendant must of necessity have been aware of the existence of the alleged newly discovered evidence long before the trial, and that it was not introduced on the trial, was manifestly due to an impression or belief that it was unnecessary for the purposes of the defense. The subsequent discovery of their importance does not make the trainbooks and documents newly discovered evidence. Hartman v. Morning Journal Association, 46 N.Y. St. Repr. 403; Baylies on New Trials and Appeals, 524, and cases cited.

Neither does it appear that the defendant was "surprised" on the trial by the failure of the witnesses King and William H. Van Tassell to testify to the identity of the car upon which plaintiff claimed to have been injured with the car "N.Y.P. O. 8007,' mentioned in their train report, by any claim or statement on the part of either of the witnesses named, that he would be able to swear to such identity. If defendant was "surprised" in any sense in respect to the testimony of these two witnesses it was not because defendant or its counsel were misled by any person, but because they assumed that the witnesses knew more than it transpired that they did know.

Besides it appears, without contradiction, that no application for postponement of the trial was made either on the ground of the inability to produce the documentary evidence, now alleged to be newly discovered, or because of the lack of sufficient preparation by counsel for the purposes of the defense, or disappointment at the refusal of defendant's witnesses, King and William H. Van Tassell, to testify to the facts necessary to establish the identity of the cars. Hence, defendant must be assumed to have voluntarily proceeded with the trial, and to have consented to the submission of the facts in dispute to the jury on the evidence presented.

Motions of this kind are addressed to the sound discretion of the court ( Williams v. Montgomery, 60 N.Y. 648; Lawrence v. Ely, 38 id 42; Selden v. Delaware Hudson Canal Co., 29 id. 634) and the judge who determined this motion having also presided on the trial, we must assume that he denied the motion upon his knowledge of the facts appearing by the affidavits, as well as those transpiring on the trial, and are unable to say that the discretion of the court was not properly exercised.

Order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

DALY, Ch. J., concurs.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Van Tassell v. New York, Etc., R. Co.

New York Common Pleas — General Term
Nov 1, 1892
1 Misc. 312 (N.Y. Misc. 1892)
Case details for

Van Tassell v. New York, Etc., R. Co.

Case Details

Full title:VAN TASSELL v . NEW YORK, ETC., R. CO

Court:New York Common Pleas — General Term

Date published: Nov 1, 1892

Citations

1 Misc. 312 (N.Y. Misc. 1892)
20 N.Y.S. 715

Citing Cases

Suken v. Metcalfe

* * * It is true that this rule is not inflexible, as where reliance is placed upon statements made by the…

Matter of Peterson

Such a state of facts does not warrant the granting of the relief sought. Matter of Tilden, 98 N.Y. 434;…