
    HENRY H. MILLER, ADMINISTRATOR, v. P. SANDFORD ROSS.
    It will require an extreme case to justify the granting of a second rule to show cause, after a new trial has been denied. The newly-discovered evidence relied upon, should not only be so persuasive as to scarcely leave it debatable that the verdict is wrong, but also such evidence as the most careful inquiry and preparation of the case for the trial at the Circuit and for the first rule to show cause, would have failed to discover.
    On application for rule to show cause.
    Argued at June Term, 1881, before Justices Deptje and Van Sycicel.
    For the plaintiff, J. Fran7c Fort.
    
    For the defendant, Joseph Coult and T. N. McOarter.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Van Syckel, J.

The trial at the Circuit, in this case, resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant had a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, which rule, after full argument, was discharged by this court and a new trial refused.

At the last term of this court the defendant applied for a second rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, based upon affidavits of newly-discovered evidence.

It will require an extreme case to justify this court in granting a second rule, after the right of a party to a re-trial has been deliberately considered and denied. The newly-discovered evidence should not only be so persuasive as to scarcely leave it debatable that the verdict is wrong, but also such evidence as the most careful inquiry and preparation of the case for the trial at the Circuit, and for the first rule, to show cause, would have failed to bring to the knowledge of the party which seeks to prolong the litigation.

Under this rule the defendant has not shown himself to be entitled to a further hearing, and his application must, therefore, be denied.  