Singh

Only two points are made by appellant in furtherance of his contention that the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial should be reversed. The first relates to newly discovered evidence and the second to two instructions, requested by him and refused by the court.

The considerations to be observed in reviewing the action of the trial judge in declining to accord to the affidavits submitted by appellant the significance asserted for them are so familiar as hardly to need restatement. It is admitted that the general rule is as stated in Tibbet v. Sue, 125 Cal. 548 , [ 58 Pac. 160 ], that “The moving party must make a clear case, showing due diligence on his part and the truth and materiality of such evidence. Newly discovered evidence after defeat is looked upon with suspicion, and this court is always reluctant to interfere with the ruling of the trial court on a motion for a new trial on that ground, and will not do so unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” It cannot be said that in the case before us the court transcended the limits of judicial discretion. The evidence set out in the affidavits was, indeed, material and important and a prima facie…