California Supreme Court, 1873

Jacks v. Buell

Jacks v. Buell
California Supreme Court · Decided July 1, 1873
47 Cal. 162

Jacks v. Buell

Opinion of the Court

By the Court:

Upon a motion for a new trial, questions respecting the sufficiency of the complaint cannot be presented, for they are not comprehended in the statutory grounds of the motion; and where an appeal is taken, as here, from the order refusing a new trial, and not from the judgment, those questions cannot be considered by this Court.

The affidavit for a continuance did not show due diligence on the part of the defendant in procuring the attendance of the absent witnesses. But were the affidavit suffi*164cient in this respect, the action of the Court in denying the motion could not be reviewed, because it is not presented by a bill of exceptions. The affidavits are clearly insufficient to entitle the defendant to a. new trial, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.