Thomas Henny, Inc. v. Public Service Railway Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Thomas Henny, Inc. v. Public Service Railway Co.

2 N.J. Misc. 396, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 161

DecidedMay 26, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.J. Misc. 396 (Thomas Henny, Inc. v. Public Service Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas Henny, Inc. v. Public Service Railway Co., 2 N.J. Misc. 396, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 161 (N.J. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages to a motor truck caused by a collision with the defendant’s trolley ear on June 7th, 1923. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,000. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause and writes -down two reasons for a new trial: First, the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Not so. 'There was a conflict in the testimony. We cannot disturb the verdict of the jury on that ground. Second, error in the charge. There was no exception entered or noted to the charge at the trial. While it is true a verdict may be set Aside on a rule to show cause, although no exception to the charge was taken at the trial (Clark v. Public Service R. R. Co., 83 N. J. L. 319), the power thus to set aside a verdict should be used cautiously by the reviewing court and only in an unusual case, where the alleged error is not called to the attention of the trial judge by a proper exception. In this Case, however, we think the criticism aimed at the charge ■of the court is hj^percritical. The rule to show cause is discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages to a motor truck caused by a collision with the defendant’s trolley ear on June 7th, 1923. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,000. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause and writes -down two reasons for a new trial: First, the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Not so. 'There was a conflict in the testimony. We cannot disturb the verdict of the jury on that ground. Second, error in the charge. There was no exception entered or noted to the charge at the trial. While it is true a verdict may be set Aside on a rule to show cause, although no exception to the charge was taken at the trial (Clark v. Public Service R. R. Co., 83 N. J. L. 319), the power thus to set aside a verdict should be used cautiously by the reviewing court and only in an unusual case, where the alleged error is not called to the attention of the trial judge by a proper exception. In this Case, however, we think the criticism aimed at the charge ■of the court is hj^percritical. The rule to show cause is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.J. Misc. 396, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-henny-inc-v-public-service-railway-co-nj-1924.