1. The order of the first Court granting a review does not indicate at all that it considered whether fresh matters, to be intoduced into the case, i. e., the documents and not the hypothetical answers that defendants might be eliciting in cross-examination are important, i. e., have really a relevant bearing on the case. Obviously, unless a Court is first satisfied prima facie that the new matter is important enough to have affected its judgment, had it been given at the trial, there will be no good reason for reversing and setting aside its own judgment. Nor has the lower appellate Court touched on this point.
2. The petition for review must be re-heard from this point of view. But unless the trial Court is satisfied that the new matter is also important for the decision of the case, it has no jurisdiction to review. The orders of the lower Courts are reversed and the petition is remanded for rehearing. Costs up to date will abide the result.