
    BOARDMAN v. McKINNON.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    February 9, 1909.)
    New Trial (§ 108)—Newly Discovered Evidence.
    Newly discovered evidence held insufficient to justify the granting of a new trial of an action tried before the court, which, if introduced, would have been insufficient to have required different findings.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see New Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 226, 227; Dec. Dig. § 108.*],
    On Motion for New Trial.
    Parker, Hatch & Sheehan, for plaintiff.
    Underwood, Van Vorst & Hoyt, for defendant.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

It will not be necessary to discuss the interesting question presented on the argument, viz., whether or not the court has power to order a new trial months after the term has elapsed, and after a writ of error has taken the cause to the appellate court.

If the document and the book entries, which are now submitted as “newly discovered” evidence, had been introduced upon the trial, which was had before the court without a jury, they would not have been persuasive to any different findings of fact than those which wrere found upon a consideration of all the evidence.

The motion is denied.  