Applications like the present for new trials have always been rejected. Were they to be listened to by the court, they would open a door for much corruption. The rule for a new' trial must therefore be discharged.
Suttrel's Executors v. Dry's Exerc'rs, 5 N.C. 94, 1 Mur. 94 (1805)
Dec. 1805
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
5 N.C. 94, 1 Mur. 94
Suttrel’s Executors vs. Dry’s Exerc’rs
ec'rs—From Wilmington.
the court will not grant a new Mai upon a<i afíKjjivit of one of the "he. did nof verdiet°the
"flic plaintiffs brought an action of debt against defendants, «pon a bond given on the 17tb February, 1777, by de-(endant’s testator, for two hundred pounds money of North-Carolina, pavable oír (lie 7th February next cnsnintr. A 7 * * 17 vbrdict was rendered for the plaintiff, and upon motion of defendant’s counsel a rule was obtained upon the plaintiff to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted, upon the S*0™^ that orie the jury who tried the cause had not assented to the verdict; and the affidavit of the Juror was offered to the court, setting forth that he did not consent to the verdict; that- he thought the money mentioned in the bond ought to have been scaled according to the scale of depreciation and that the fullvalue called for in the bond ought not to have been given,