Barber v. James

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Barber v. James

31 A. 264, 18 R.I. 798, 1895 R.I. LEXIS 16

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 6, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 A. 264 (Barber v. James) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barber v. James, 31 A. 264, 18 R.I. 798, 1895 R.I. LEXIS 16 (R.I. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We find no error in the action of the court in summoning more than twelve jurors. Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 104, § 4, directs that twelve good and lawful men shall be returned. The summoning of more than twelve may frequently be necessary in order to secure the twelve good and lawful men required. If these are obtained, the defendant can have no ground of complaint because more than twelve good men were summoned to attain this result. Fitchburg R. R. Co. v. B. & M. Railroad, 3 Cush. 58, 85; Hosmer v. Warner, 15 Gray, 46.

The defendant has no ground of complaint because of the alleged exclusion of the testimony of Shippee. Assuming that the testimony was proper, the defendant had already had the benefit of it in the previous answers of the witness.

*799 Samuel W. K. Allen, for plaintiff. John M. Brennan, for defendants.

We see no occasion to disturb the verdict on the ground that the damages were excessive.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We find no error in the action of the court in summoning more than twelve jurors. Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 104, § 4, directs that twelve good and lawful men shall be returned. The summoning of more than twelve may frequently be necessary in order to secure the twelve good and lawful men required. If these are obtained, the defendant can have no ground of complaint because more than twelve good men were summoned to attain this result. Fitchburg R. R. Co. v. B. & M. Railroad, 3 Cush. 58, 85; Hosmer v. Warner, 15 Gray, 46.

The defendant has no ground of complaint because of the alleged exclusion of the testimony of Shippee. Assuming that the testimony was proper, the defendant had already had the benefit of it in the previous answers of the witness.

*799 Samuel W. K. Allen, for plaintiff. John M. Brennan, for defendants.

We see no occasion to disturb the verdict on the ground that the damages were excessive.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A. 264, 18 R.I. 798, 1895 R.I. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-james-ri-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack