
    FREUDENHEIM v. LONDON.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 16, 1908.)
    New- Trial (§ 100)—Grounds—Newly Discovered Evidence—Cumulative Evidence.
    Where part of the evidence upon which a motion for new trial was based was sought to be established by witnesses who were in court at trial, and all of it was either contradictory of the evidence for plaintiff at trial or in impeachment of his witness, it was not newly discovered evidence so as to require a new trial.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see New Trial, Cent. Dig. § 203; Dec. Dig. § 100.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of .Manhattan, Ninth District.
    
      Action by Isidore Freudenheim against Albert London. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed. Argued before GIEGERICH, HENDRICK, and FORD, JJ.
    James, Schell & Elkus, for appellant.
    David Kornbluth, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HENDRICK, J.

Appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The evidence sought to be introduced was not newly discovered. Part of it is sought to be established by witnesses who were in court on the trial, and all of it is either in contradiction of testimony rendered on the trial on behalf of the plaintiff, or in impeachment of plaintiff’s witnesses. Evidence of such a character cannot be considered as newly discovered.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.  