# Bullock v. . Williams

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · March 23, 1938 · 213 N.C. 320

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3655407

## Case

- **Full name:** David Bullock v. M. K. (Bud) Williams.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** March 23, 1938
- **Citations:** 213 N.C. 320; 195 S.E. 791; 1938 N.C. LEXIS 76
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** PER CURIAM.
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3655407

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
Tbe prerequisites to tbe granting of motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence are fully set forth in
Johnson v. R. R.,
163 N. C., 431 , 79 S. E., 690 ; also in
Brown v. Hillsboro,
185 N. C., 368 , 117 S. E., 41 ;
Brown v. Sheets,
197 N. C., 268 , 148 S. E., 233 ;
S. v. Casey,
201 N. C., 620 , 161 S. E., 81 ;
Love v. Queen City Lines,
206 N. C., 575 , 174 S. E., 514 ;
Furniture Co. v. Cole,
207 N. C., 847 , 178 S. E., 579 .
An examination of tbe affidavits offered by defendant in support of tbe motion fails to show compliance with tbe tests required. When compared with tbe evidence introduced at tbe trial of tbe case in Superior Court, it is observed that tbe so-called newly discovered evidence is merely cumulative and tends only to contradict former witnesses.
“Although tbe discretionary ruling of tbe trial judge upon an application for new trial for newly discovered evidence is not reviewable on appeal, where tbe applicant fails to make out a showing of newly discovered evidence sufficient in law to invoke tbe discretionary ruling tbe granting of tbe application will be held for error,” beadnote in
Crane v. Carswell,
204 N. C., 571 , 169 S. E., 160 , wbicb is applicable here.
Tbe granting of a new trial below is
Error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3655407. Public record. Not legal advice.