James v. Staples

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

James v. Staples

180 A. 916, 87 N.H. 388, 1935 N.H. LEXIS 41

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in James v. Staples. Read the opinion of the Court — 87 N.H. 49 →

Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided October 1, 1935·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order for a jury trial is to be interpreted by the trial justice making it in respect to its application to the trial had or to any retrial as well. Lear v. Brodeur, 84 N. H. 549, 550. If it was to apply to a retrial, it may be set aside upon a finding of accident, mistake or misfortune causing the continuance of the order to be unjust, conformably with the statutory principle (P. L., c. 342) relating to new trials.

Case discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

The order for a jury trial is to be interpreted by the trial justice making it in respect to its application to the trial had or to any retrial as well. Lear v. Brodeur, 84 N. H. 549, 550. If it was to apply to a retrial, it may be set aside upon a finding of accident, mistake or misfortune causing the continuance of the order to be unjust, conformably with the statutory principle (P. L., c. 342) relating to new trials.

Case discharged.

James v. Staples, 180 A. 916, 87 N.H. 388, 1935 N.H. LEXIS 41 (N.H. 1935).

Pincite

180 A. 916 (James v. Staples) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related