
    Henry H. Putnam vs. Eben Woodbury.
    Aroostook.
    Decided January 14, 1878.
    
      Post-office. Action. Nevi trial.
    
    A promise to pay a mail contractor for performing his contract with the post-office department is without consideration.
    When a fact constituting a defense known to the plaintiff and unknown to the defendant is discovered after verdict, it furnishes a good ground for a new trial, the defendant being in no fault for his ignorance of such fact.
    On MOTIONS.
    Assumpsit, for carrying the mails between Houlton and Dan-forth from March 14 to April 10, 1872 ; 24. trips at $10 per trip, $240.
    Plea, general issue with brief statement that the plaintiff was mail contractor on the same route.
    The verdict was for the plaintiff, $159 ; which the defendant moved to set aside as against law and evidence. He also filed a - motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
    
      W. M. Robinson <& J. B. Hutchinson, for the defendant.
    
      L. Powers, for the plaintiff.
   Appleton, C. J.

The defendant is the postmaster of Houlton. The plaintiff is a mail contractor. This suit is for carrying the mail two miles each way additional to, and not required by his contract, upon the alleged promise of the defendant to pay for such extra work.

The evidence of such agreement is very conflicting, but we should hardly feel authorized to set aside the verdict as against evidence.

But since the trial, the defendant moves for a new trial on the', ground of newly discovered evidence, and offers to prove that the change of route was made with the consent of the post-office department, at the instance of the plaintiff and subject to the proviso that there should be no additional expense. This is very important and material; for the defendant would not be liable upon his promise to pay the plaintiff for carrying the mail in accordance with his contract with the postmaster general.

The defendant does not seem in fault for not knowing the change of route made or authorized by the department at the instance of the plaintiff.

New trial granted for newly discovered evidence.

Dickerson, DaNfokth, Yieg-in, Peters and Libbey, JJ., concurred.  