<p>(1) New Trial. Duty of Court after Repeated Concurring Verdicts.</p> <p>After three concurring verdicts for a plaintiff the court must assume, even though it may not he satisfied, that the verdict is not against the evidence. Burnham v. N. V. B. R. Co., 17 R. I. 544, distinguished.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Heard on petition of defendant for a new trial · Decided 1900-03-07
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1927
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
(1)
In view of three concurring verdicts for the
*8
plaintiff, the court must assume, even though it may not be satisfied, that the verdict is not against the evidence.
John W.
Hogan, for plaintiff.
Edwards &
Angelí, for defendant.
¶2
In
Burnham
v.
N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R.,
17 R. I. 544, and 18 R. I. 494, this court set aside three concurring verdicts, but for reasons which do not apply to this case. In that case, in the opinion of the majority of the court, it conclusively appeared that the engine which Burnham was running, comparing its admitted rate of speed and the distance to be covered, must have been beyond the electric signal, so that he could have seen it if he had been looking. In this case there'is no such degree of certainty.
¶3
No exceptions are urged, and the only question of law which the defendant presents is one based upon a finding of the fact that the defendant did not know, or have reason to know, that his lumber was piled on private land. Evidently the jury did not so find.
¶4
Upon the testimony the damages do not appear to be excessive.
