G.R. No. L-7027 / March 20, 1912
GEORGE E. WORCESTER, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP LINES, LTD., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

After the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, George E. Worcester, and while the defendant’s appeal was pending before the Supreme Court on a bill of exceptions, the defendant-appellant filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. This evidence consisted of a deposition from the master of the steamship Kaloma, detailing the circumstances under which the ship’s cargo was lost. The cargo was destroyed when the ship was deliberately sunk in the harbor of Singapore to extinguish a dangerous fire that had broken out in the case-oil section. The defendant argued this evidence would show the fire was not caused by the design or neglect of the shipowner or its employees, which would exempt them from liability under the bill of lading and U.S. Revised Statutes.

ISSUE

Should a new trial be granted based on the newly discovered evidence presented by the defendant-appellant?

RULING

Yes, a new trial is conditionally granted. The Supreme Court acknowledged the difficulty in obtaining testimony from the master of an ocean-going vessel about an incident in a foreign port. While noting that the master remained in the defendant’s employ and modern communication could have facilitated obtaining his evidence earlier, the Court exercised its discretion under the Code of Civil Procedure.

The new trial is granted upon the following conditions:
1. The defendant-appellant must pay all costs accrued in both the trial and appellate courts up to the date of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
2. The plaintiff-appellee is permitted, if he so elects, to dismiss his complaint within thirty days after the case is returned to the trial court, without further condemnation for costs.

If the defendant accepts these conditions within twenty days, the judgment of the lower court will be reversed and a new trial ordered. If not, the lower court’s judgment will be affirmed. The Court found the new evidence to be of such character that it would probably change the result of the case.