Ryer v. Hyde

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Ryer v. Hyde

44 A. 719, 21 R.I. 485, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 107

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 24, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A. 719 (Ryer v. Hyde) 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

Ryer v. Hyde, 44 A. 719, 21 R.I. 485, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 107 (R.I. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) The petition for re-argument rests on the ground that the court had not considered the exceptions taken in the coufse of the trial. The only one which was argued related to the admissibility of testimony by the plaintiff based upon a copy of a list of articles which she used to refresh her memory. Assuming that the ruling was wrong, an inspection of the record shows that the witness testified from memory, independently of the list, to practically all of the articles claimed in the suit. The error in the ruling, therefore,- if any, was harmless, and not a ground for a new trial. This was considered by the court, though not mentioned in its' rescript. 1

We have examined the other exceptions on the record and find none which we consider to be of importance. The exceptions are therefore overruled.

(2) Counsel seem to suppose that the court is bound to pass upon exceptions which are presented as the basis of a petition for a new trial, as it would be bound to do were the exceptions contained in a bill of exceptions. But a greater latitude is allowed to the court in a petition for a new trial than exists in the case of a bill of exceptions, since in the former the court has the discretion to grant, or refuse a new trial without reference to the correctness of the rulings, if in its opinion the error was harmless and substantial justice has been done, while in the latter the sole question before the court is the correctness of the rulings which are the subject of exception. Collier v. Jencks, 19 R. I. 493; Goodell v. Fairbrother, 12 R. I. 233.

Rescript.

We think the testimony shows that more property was in the hands of the plaintiff than appears to have been allowed for by the jury, and we therefore grant the defendant’s peti *487 tion for a new trial unless the plaintiff will consent that the verdict he reduced to five hundred dollars and take judgment thereon accordingly.

Case remitted to the Common Pleas Division for further proceedings.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) The petition for re-argument rests on the ground that the court had not considered the exceptions taken in the coufse of the trial. The only one which was argued related to the admissibility of testimony by the plaintiff based upon a copy of a list of articles which she used to refresh her memory. Assuming that the ruling was wrong, an inspection of the record shows that the witness testified from memory, independently of the list, to practically all of the articles claimed in the suit. The error in the ruling, therefore,- if any, was harmless, and not a ground for a new trial. This was considered by the court, though not mentioned in its' rescript. 1

We have examined the other exceptions on the record and find none which we consider to be of importance. The exceptions are therefore overruled.

(2) Counsel seem to suppose that the court is bound to pass upon exceptions which are presented as the basis of a petition for a new trial, as it would be bound to do were the exceptions contained in a bill of exceptions. But a greater latitude is allowed to the court in a petition for a new trial than exists in the case of a bill of exceptions, since in the former the court has the discretion to grant, or refuse a new trial without reference to the correctness of the rulings, if in its opinion the error was harmless and substantial justice has been done, while in the latter the sole question before the court is the correctness of the rulings which are the subject of exception. Collier v. Jencks, 19 R. I. 493; Goodell v. Fairbrother, 12 R. I. 233.

Rescript.

We think the testimony shows that more property was in the hands of the plaintiff than appears to have been allowed for by the jury, and we therefore grant the defendant’s peti *487 tion for a new trial unless the plaintiff will consent that the verdict he reduced to five hundred dollars and take judgment thereon accordingly.

Case remitted to the Common Pleas Division for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A. 719, 21 R.I. 485, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryer-v-hyde-ri-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack