
    DON McCULLAGH LEASING, INCORPORATED, v. AMOS
    New Trial — Newly-Discovered Evidence — Court Rule.
    Trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for new trial held, proper where the record shows that plaintiff did not comply with court rule requiring motions for new trial to be filed within five days of entry of judgment, and where plaintiff did not show that with reasonable diligence he could not have discovered and produced sueh evidence at trial (Common. Pleas Court of Detroit Rule No 18).
    Appeal from Common Pleas Court of Detroit, John D. O’Hair, J.
    Submitted Division 1 February 11, 1969, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 4,252.)
    Decided March 26, 1969.
    Declaration by Don McCullagh’ Leasing, Inc., a Michigan corporation, against Luther Amos for damages resulting from an automobile collision. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      William B. Cope, for plaintiff.
    
      Bernstein & Bernstein (Jerome H. Solomon, of counsel), for defendant.
    BEFORE: Fitzgerald, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Bronson, JJ.
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    39 Am Jur, New Trial § 181 et seq.
    
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff; brought action against the defendant for damages incurred by plaintiff through the negligent operation of defendant’s automobile. The court returned a judgment of no cause of action.

Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, which was denied by the trial judge.

A review of the record indicates that the plaintiff did not comply with common pleas court rule No 18. Also the plaintiff did not show that with reasonable diligence he could not have discovered and produced such evidence at trial.

Affirmed.  