Wilson v. Adams

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Wilson v. Adams

52 A. 1134, 68 N.J.L. 77, 39 Vroom 77, 1902 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 87

DecidedJune 9, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A. 1134 (Wilson v. Adams) 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

Wilson v. Adams, 52 A. 1134, 68 N.J.L. 77, 39 Vroom 77, 1902 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 87 (N.J. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

This is the plaintiff’s rule to show cause. The verdict was for a part of the claim for which suit was brought. The defence interposed at the trial was the mental incapacity of the defendant. The defendant was not. called as a witness, but he was in the court during the trial and was confronted by testimony which, if uncontradicted, should have established his liability beyond the amount allowed by the verdict. It was not contradicted. The defendant’s demeanor when before the jury and his deportment when out of court being shown to us by the proofs taken under this rule, we are satisfied that the defendant was shamming in the presence of the jury and that the verdict was improperly affected thereby.

A new trial is granted.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

This is the plaintiff’s rule to show cause. The verdict was for a part of the claim for which suit was brought. The defence interposed at the trial was the mental incapacity of the defendant. The defendant was not. called as a witness, but he was in the court during the trial and was confronted by testimony which, if uncontradicted, should have established his liability beyond the amount allowed by the verdict. It was not contradicted. The defendant’s demeanor when before the jury and his deportment when out of court being shown to us by the proofs taken under this rule, we are satisfied that the defendant was shamming in the presence of the jury and that the verdict was improperly affected thereby.

A new trial is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A. 1134, 68 N.J.L. 77, 39 Vroom 77, 1902 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-adams-nj-1902.