The appellants challenged an order rejecting their allegation that the respondent had committed perjury in prior trial evidence.
The court held that the taped conversation relied upon did not establish, directly or by reasonable inference, that the respondent had deliberately misled the trial court.
The proposed affidavit evidence was not fresh because it could have been adduced on the motion, and in any event did not provide clear and cogent evidence of perjury or fraud.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
