Semonian v. Panoras

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Semonian v. Panoras

1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 88

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 14, 1918

DocketNo.40863

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 88 (Semonian v. Panoras) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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

Semonian v. Panoras, 1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 88 (R.I. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

DORAN, J.

The strongest fact against the verdict is the improbability that plaintiff, a poor man, would leave accruing and uncollected a board bill for nearly three years, until it amounted to about $1200, as plaintiff says, or $588 as the jury say. The evidence and argument (by suggestion) also indicate that plaintiff may have claimed that he had ground for hatred and revenge against defendant. The alleged cause of this, if believed by the jury, was one likely to prejudice them, but there is no way by which I can demonstrate the existence or absence of such prejudice. The jury heard both sides and say they believe that the board, &c., were not paid for. I cannot find sufficient reason to disturb the finding.

Motion for new trial denied.

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

DORAN, J.

The strongest fact against the verdict is the improbability that plaintiff, a poor man, would leave accruing and uncollected a board bill for nearly three years, until it amounted to about $1200, as plaintiff says, or $588 as the jury say. The evidence and argument (by suggestion) also indicate that plaintiff may have claimed that he had ground for hatred and revenge against defendant. The alleged cause of this, if believed by the jury, was one likely to prejudice them, but there is no way by which I can demonstrate the existence or absence of such prejudice. The jury heard both sides and say they believe that the board, &c., were not paid for. I cannot find sufficient reason to disturb the finding.

Motion for new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/semonian-v-panoras-risuperct-1918.