Johnson v. Domer

Citations

• 76 Wash. 677
• 136 P. 1169
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1874

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Review—Denial of New Tbial — Abuse of Discretion. On motion for a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, it is the duty of the trial judge to determine whether the evidence is sufficient or insufficient; and it is an abuse of discretion to refuse the new trial, when the evidence is insufficient, and when satisfied of that fact.</p> <p>Fraud — Sale of Stock — Actions — Evidence of Fraud — Sufficiency. The evidence is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, for fraudulent representations alleged to have been made by the defendant on the sale of stock, where the evidence that the defendant sold the stock, as claimed by plaintiff and his wife, was uncertain, contradictory, and entitled to little weight, and was contradicted by three witnesses and in conflict with undisputed facts and circumstances, and it appears that plaintiff and his wife had never seen defendant before, nor afterwards for nearly three years, and must have been mistaken in their identification.</p> <p>Evidence — Hearsay. In an action for fraud in the sale of stock, upon an issue as to the identification of the defendant as to whether he was the man who made the representations, evidence that the plaintiff was advised by a fortune teller to purchase the stock and to see the defendant about it, is inadmissible as hearsay, where defendant had no acquaintance with the fortune teller and had never seen him.</p>