Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward Hovey, 1883 — 93 N.Y. 651 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward Hovey
93 N.Y. 651·New York Court of Appeals·1883·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward Hovey.
(Argued October 2, 1883 ;
decided October 9, 1883.)
This was an appeal from an order of General Term, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. On account of the serious character of the case, the accused having been convicted of murder in the first degree, without passing upon the question as to whether an order denying such an application in a criminal action is reviewable here, the court examined the alleged newly-discovered evidence, and a majority agreed in the conclusion of the General Term that “ a case was not made for the intervention of the court in granting a new trial.”
William F. Kintzing and Thomas F. Grady for appellant.
John Vincent for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
mem. for affirmance.
All concur, except Rapallo, Miller and Finch, JJ., dissenting, the former reading a dissenting opinion.
Order affirmed.