Campbell v. Campbell

71 A. 1058, 29 R.I. 428, 1909 R.I. LEXIS 32
CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island
DecidedMarch 12, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by66 cases

This text of 71 A. 1058 (Campbell v. Campbell) 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
Campbell v. Campbell, 71 A. 1058, 29 R.I. 428, 1909 R.I. LEXIS 32 (R.I. 1909).

Opinion

• Per Curiam.

This is the appellant’s petition for a new trial, under C. P, A. § 472, upon the ground that he did not have a full, fair, and impartial trial in the Superior Court, for the reason that the justice who presided at the trial in said Superior ’Court compelled his counsel to choose either to continue the «case without witnesses after the regular hour of adjournment or to limit the number of witnesses to be called on the following day to those he could forthwith name, without having previously notified him that the court vould sit beyond the usual time that night, or that he would be compelled to make such «choice.

The conduct of the court complained of was subject to «exception to be taken immediately, under C. P. A., § 483, which reads as follows:

“Sec. 483. Exceptions to rulings, directions, and decisions made during a hearing in a cause heard by the court without a jury or during a trial by a jury shall be taken immediately.”
*429 Green, Hinckley & Allen, for appellant. James Harris and Irving Champlin, for appellees.

As was clearly explained by Matteson, C. J., in Bristow v. Nichols, 19 R. I. 719: “To render a trial not a full, fair, or impartial trial within the meaning of section 2, there must,, we think, be something-more than mere error on the part of the court which would form the subject of an exception.. Unless there be something more than this, to grant a new trial under section 2 would be to do away practically with the procedure provided in section 6.”

That case is determinative of this, and therefore the appellant’s petition for a new trial must be denied and dismissed.

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

Related

United States v. Juan Melgar-Hernandez
832 F.3d 261 (D.C. Circuit, 2016)
Sky Angel U.S., LLC v. Discovery Communications, LLC
28 F. Supp. 3d 465 (D. Maryland, 2014)
Smith v. State
905 A.2d 315 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2006)
Newman v. State
863 A.2d 321 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2004)
Carter v. State
817 A.2d 277 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2003)
Polansky v. State
109 A.2d 52 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Hurwitz v. State
92 A.2d 575 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Tharp v. State
763 A.2d 151 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2000)
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Forma-Pack, Inc.
718 A.2d 1129 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1998)
Bridges v. State
695 A.2d 609 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1997)
Thomas v. State
634 A.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1993)
Rubin v. State
602 A.2d 677 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1992)
Campbell v. State
601 A.2d 667 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1992)
Birchead v. State
566 A.2d 488 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1989)
Minor v. State
546 A.2d 1028 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1988)
Bullock v. State
543 A.2d 858 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1988)
Mason v. State
488 A.2d 955 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1985)
Gardner v. State
408 A.2d 1317 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1979)
Bennett v. State
392 A.2d 76 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1978)
Harrison v. State
345 A.2d 830 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 A. 1058, 29 R.I. 428, 1909 R.I. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-campbell-ri-1909.