
    Smith v. Cushman.
    The question, whether a defect of proof in evidence addressed to the court can be supplied after verdict by newly discovered evidence, will not ordinarily bo considered on a motion for a rehearing : it is a question to be decided at the trial term.
    Motion, for a rehearing of the case reported ante 27. The plaintiff, since the former decision, having discovered the deed from Haines to Ladd granting the driftway, now moves for a rehearing, and asks to be allowed to supply the missing link in his chain of title.
    
      Brink, for the plaintiff.
    
      A. B. Hatch, for the defendant.
   CliAUK, J.

The court is of opinion that the motion for a rehearing should be denied. At the trial term, if it appears that the newly discovered evidence raises nothing for the consideration of the jury, but a mere question for the court, by which the former trial'could not be affected in a manner unjust to the defendant, the presiding judge will determine whether justice requires a new trial of this point only by the court, and make such order as justice requires. No question of mere law is now presented which we can see must necessarily be tried by tbe court, and the question raised is sent to the trial term. Gamsby v. Columbia, 58 N. H. 60.

Motion for rehearing “denied.

Smith, J., did not sit i the others concurred.  