
    E. D. Prewitt v. Henry Kroop.
    New Trial — Newly-discovered Evidence.
    The newly-discovered testimony was parol and was to the only point litigated on the trial, and consisted of statements made by the party on his examination as a witness on a public trial, and was thereby rendered less difficult to discover.
    APPEAL EROM JEEEERSON CIRCUIT COURT, COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.
    “ The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the brick were bought by King, and for his benefit and use, and that Prewitt promised verbally to pay for them they must find for defendants.”
    
      8. Harney, for Appellant.
    January 21, 1867.
   Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters:

The principle of law involved in this controversy was correctly presented to the jury in the instruction given, there being but one, and although we might incline to the opinion that the evidence preponderated against the verdict, still it certainly is not so clearly against the weight of evidence, which was conflicting, as to authorize us to reverse the judgment after the appellant’s motion for a new trial had been overruled by the judge who presided.

The newly-discovered testimony was parol, and was to the only point litigated on the trial. Moreover, it consisted of statements made by the party on his examination as a witness in a public trial, and thereby rendered less difficult to discover.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.  