DocketNumber: Appeal, 103
Citation Numbers: 57 A.2d 914, 162 Pa. Super. 524, 1948 Pa. Super. LEXIS 250
Judges: Arnold, Dithrich, Fine, Hirt, Reno, Rhodes, Ross
Filed Date: 4/14/1948
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Argued April 14, 1948. This is a trespass action in which defendant has appealed from the order of the court below granting a new trial, on plaintiff's motion, upon the ground of after-discovered evidence. At the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant on his counterclaim in the sum of $2,000. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and among the reasons assigned was that relating to after-discovered evidence.
Appellant on this appeal contends that the alleged after-discovered evidence did not warrant the grant of a new trial in that the affidavits in support of the motion failed to meet the prescribed tests. See Hornick et al. v. Bethlehem MinesCorp,
But as we said in Kingsdorf v. Frank Gamburg, Inc.,
In the absence of a clear abuse of discretion by the court below, we will not reverse the order.
The order appealed from is affirmed. *Page 526