Silva v. Silva

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Silva v. Silva

65 A. 272, 27 R.I. 562, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 47

DecidedApril 16, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A. 272 (Silva v. Silva) 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

Silva v. Silva, 65 A. 272, 27 R.I. 562, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 47 (R.I. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action of trespass for an assault, in which the defendant pleaded the general issue only. At the trial evidence was introduced, without objection, which established a justification. After verdict for the defendant the plaintiff asks for a new trial on the ground, in effect, that this evidence was inadmissible without a special plea. The principle urged by the plaintiff is undoubtedly well established, but no exception was taken to the admission of the evidence or to the charge of the court in regard to the effect of it, and it is too late to urge such objection for the first timein an appellate court.

*563 Page and Page and Cushing, for plaintiff. John C. Quinn, for defendant.

We think that upon the whole evidence the verdict of the jury does substantial justice between the parties, and the petition for a new trial is denied and the case is remitted to the Superior Court for judgment.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an action of trespass for an assault, in which the defendant pleaded the general issue only. At the trial evidence was introduced, without objection, which established a justification. After verdict for the defendant the plaintiff asks for a new trial on the ground, in effect, that this evidence was inadmissible without a special plea. The principle urged by the plaintiff is undoubtedly well established, but no exception was taken to the admission of the evidence or to the charge of the court in regard to the effect of it, and it is too late to urge such objection for the first timein an appellate court.

*563 Page and Page and Cushing, for plaintiff. John C. Quinn, for defendant.

We think that upon the whole evidence the verdict of the jury does substantial justice between the parties, and the petition for a new trial is denied and the case is remitted to the Superior Court for judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A. 272, 27 R.I. 562, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silva-v-silva-ri-1906.