Gleavy v. Court Love and Truth

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Gleavy v. Court Love and Truth

49 A. 387, 23 R.I. 85, 1901 R.I. LEXIS 85

DecidedJune 5, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A. 387 (Gleavy v. Court Love and Truth) 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

Gleavy v. Court Love and Truth, 49 A. 387, 23 R.I. 85, 1901 R.I. LEXIS 85 (R.I. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant claims that the plaintiff did not comply with the by-laws of the order before commencing action. ,This issue was left to the jury and found for the plaintiff upon testimony tending to show that he made his claim and demanded a hearing before the arbitration committee, which was refused by the defendant’s officers. The testimony was sufficient to warrant the finding.

(1) The violation of the by-laws in going out of the house *87 without consent from the court physician is answered by the fact that the latter was not attending the plaintiff, and the doctor who did attend him gave consent. The by-law is evidently intended to guard against fraud in feigning sickness and confinement. Its purpose would have no application in this case, since, on the two occasions when it is claimed that the plaintiff left his house in the evening, he attended meet-' ings of the defendant lodge. The matter is too trivial to affect the question of liability, and, hence, is not a ground for a new trial.

Hugh J. Carroll, for plaintiff. James F. Murphy, for defendant.

The ground of newly-discovered evidence relates to this last matter, and if shown, as claimed, could add nothing to it by way of substantial defence.

(2) It appears that the court physician was notified of the plaintiff’s sickness, and the matter of putting him on the sick-list would be an act of the society and not of the plaintiff.

The petition for a new trial is denied. Case remitted.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant claims that the plaintiff did not comply with the by-laws of the order before commencing action. ,This issue was left to the jury and found for the plaintiff upon testimony tending to show that he made his claim and demanded a hearing before the arbitration committee, which was refused by the defendant’s officers. The testimony was sufficient to warrant the finding.

(1) The violation of the by-laws in going out of the house *87 without consent from the court physician is answered by the fact that the latter was not attending the plaintiff, and the doctor who did attend him gave consent. The by-law is evidently intended to guard against fraud in feigning sickness and confinement. Its purpose would have no application in this case, since, on the two occasions when it is claimed that the plaintiff left his house in the evening, he attended meet-' ings of the defendant lodge. The matter is too trivial to affect the question of liability, and, hence, is not a ground for a new trial.

Hugh J. Carroll, for plaintiff. James F. Murphy, for defendant.

The ground of newly-discovered evidence relates to this last matter, and if shown, as claimed, could add nothing to it by way of substantial defence.

(2) It appears that the court physician was notified of the plaintiff’s sickness, and the matter of putting him on the sick-list would be an act of the society and not of the plaintiff.

The petition for a new trial is denied. Case remitted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A. 387, 23 R.I. 85, 1901 R.I. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gleavy-v-court-love-and-truth-ri-1901.