case Richard versus synes June see Duffield v Elwes Bligh n S SC barn Charles  Eq Cas Abr the court will not grant a new trial upon a suggestion that the  party be not apprise of a particular evidence and therefore not prepare to  give a answer the question be whether there be ground enough for a new trial  the fact to be try in the cause be whether Mr George Richard give the mortgage  in question to the defendant in equity upon the trial in order to discredit  the evidence of one Bere the most material atkins er p witness for the  defendant in equity the plaintiff bring a person to swear that this witness  for the defendant be not in England at the time he swear to the fact several  affidavit be read upon the motion on behalf of the defendant in equity to  prove that Bere be actual in England at the time he swear to the fact it be  insist therefore by his counsel that the credit of Bere be invalidate as have  be mention weigh great with the jury and be the principal reason that induce  they to give the verdict for the plaintiff in equity it be insist likewise  that the defendant in equity be not prepare to do any more than to support the  general character of his witness or otherwise can have give the same answer he  be able to do now if he have be aware of the objection Lord chancellor this be  a application for a new trial which come before the court after a considerable  length of time as the verdict be give in November last the ground for the new  trial be that the defendant in this court be surprise with evidence he be not  aware of and so he be not prepare to answer it vide Hennell v Kelland Eq ab pl  Codrington v web vern burgundies v Payton cite Prec Charles Stace v mabbot Ves  a great many objection have be make to this motion both upon general and  particular reason the first objection that this be a application for a new  trial after a verdict find by a special jury upon a trial at bar atkins I do  agree that former some countenance have be show to this objection and a  distinction take between trial at bar and at nisi prius because the latter be  subordinate to the other and therefore not of so solemn a nature vide attorney  general v Montgomery post baker v hunt Ves but this point be solemnly consider  upon the case of the queen and the bailiff and burgess of Bewdley p wms where  eleven judge against the single opinion of Mr justice John Powell determine  that a new trial ought to be grant another general objection be that it be  contrary to the rule in court of commonlaw for it be say they never grant a  new trial there for want of the attendance of witness or of a party not be  ready the reason be plain because the issue there be bare draw out upon the  fact which be to be try and it be impossible to tell whether a jury find a  verdict upon the merit or upon a discredit of witness and court at commonlaw  may set aside a verdict nine time in ten if it shall be a ground for a new  trial that one of the party be not apprise of the evidence on the other side  Ves but then it be say and material too that there be a difference between  issue at commonlaw and issue direct by this court because the intent of it  here be only to inform the conscience of the court and therefore not tie down  to the same strictness and regard for verdict as court of commonlaw but in the  present case there be no ground for a new trial the person who make a  affidavit on behalf of the defendant in equity swear that he give Richard  notice a fortnight before the trial that they will on the other side attempt  to prove Bere abroad which though it be not so particular as to point out the  very place where they will show he to be yet be sufficient notice for Richard  to prepare to encounter this evidence the case of the attorney general versus  Montgomery post atk S c have be mention in which I grant a new trial but upon  very different reason from the present atkins I be then aware of the  inconvenience which may arise from grant new trial upon the discovery of new  evidence relate to the same fact but what I place the chief weight upon be  that the evidence there be in the hand of the relator themselves and there be  no kind of danger of perjury and therefore can be no precedent in the present  case there be another reason that weigh with I that the new trial be pray on  behalf of the plaintiff at law and if it have be better make out I shall not  have incline to grant it because it be in his power to have be nonsuit for if  his counsel have be of opinion that there be evidence that they be not apprise  of and too strong for they to encounter they may have advice he to suffer a  nonsuit and then he may have come back to this court for new direction who  will have order another issue at law notwithstanding the nonsuit atkins er p  upon the whole there be no ground for a new trial and of extreme dangerous  consequence to grant it mere upon a suggestion that the party be not apprise  of this evidence and therefore be not prepare to give a answer tovey v young  Prec Charles