cnnigpnnn rg. rnoneson. 45
the jury, upon which there was expert testimonyon lboth sides ofthe
controversy. If a new trial should be granted, the newly·discovered tes,
timony would be submitted to the jury for the purpose of rebutting or
outweighing the testimony of the manufacturers of theengine, and two
other intelligent and experienced machinists. The defendants have failed
to satisfytne that they exercised due diligence in discovering and procur-
ing on the trial the evidence now for the iirst time presented. The case
was pending in court for more than two years, and from the pleadings it
appears that defendants were aware of the nature of the legal defense
claimed by them under the contract of purchase, and they must have
been advised of the kind of evidence required to sustainjtheir allegations.
Mr. Girdwood was a citizen of Asheville, the place where the machinery
was purchased,,and where the court was held in which the action was
pending. ` Hesays in his afiidavit that "he has lived in western North
Carolina 16 years,,_and is familiar with the classof engines sold in this
section for saw-mill purp6ses,_and had experience in running saw-mills."
A person so well known in the community, soihighly experienced as a
machinist, and so easily accessible, might have been procured as at witi
ness on the trial by reasonable diligence; it   · " ,` ’   A ·*`.  
Complaint is fmade onthe part of defendants that astatement of one
ofithe counsel of the plaintiffs in the concluding argument unduly in-
tluenced the verdictof theijury. . It is insisted that he argued with much
force thatthe evidence showed that theengine was of 13 horse-power,
`“but that, if it was subsequentlyascertained that this was not ~true,`=the
iplaint;iH’si‘would surrender their judgment? ° No exception to those re-
marks was made on the trial, the interference of the court was not in-
voked at the time, and no special instructions on the matter were asked
when the court charged the jury. If su-ch statement was improper, ex-
ception ought to have been/taken in apt time;, rand, now that it is called
to the attention of the court forthe Hrst time, it cannot avail as tcause
for a new trial. Knight v. Hawghtallrng, 85 N. C. 28. v_ _ w l Y
_ ·-The aiiidavits of two jurors have been filed by   forth
opinions. and views that influenced the verdict of the jury without aver-
ring any acts of misconduct. It is an old rule, and well settled, that, on
a motion for a new trial, a jury will not be allowed to explain the grounds
of their verdict. The policy of this rule is so apparent that no come
ment is necessary. 2 Tidd, Pr. 817 ; Lester v. Goode, 2 Murph. 37..
. I have carefully considered theusual causes and reasons which. have
influenced courts in granting new trials,,and iind none that would au-
thorize me to allow this motion of the defendants. VI fully appreciate
the wisdom and justness of theprinciple of law tersely expressed in a
· familiar legal maxim, and so. often announced in judicial decisions, that
the policy of the law is against second trials in the same action, as itis
for the best interests of the state that litigation should be ended. . _
. In conclusion, I will endeavor to state briefly. my views, impressions,
and recollections, as to the general merits of this controversy, as devel-
oped 0n_ the trial, as this case hasexcited some degree of public interest.
The action was `brought to recover the price of a 13 horse-power engine,