Ex parte Ward
5 Cow. 20
Opinion
The proviso relied upon is, “ that no new trial shall be granted, otherwise than for irregularity, unless one of the judges present and concurring, shall be of the degree of counsellor at law in the Supreme Court of this state.” ■ This presence and concurrence are referable to the time of granting the motion; not the time of trial. It must depend on the judge’s own discretion, upon the means of information, and circumstances of the case whether he will interfere. We deny the motion, but without costs.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ex parte Ward, 5 Cow. 20 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1825).
5 Cow. 20 (Ex parte Ward) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Harper v. Lin
N.D. California, 2025
74 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1035, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,623 Aloysius L. Maschka, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Genuine Parts Company, Doing Business as Napa Auto Parts, Appellant/cross-Appellee
122 F.3d 566 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)
Elnora G. POPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
998 F.2d 473 (Seventh Circuit, 1993)
In re Road in West Brunswick Township
1 Foster 185 (Schuylkill County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1873)