Review

Viewing again: a second consideration; revisement, reconsideration, re-examination to correct, if necessary, a previous examination.

1.

A re-examination for report upon the /line of a highway as recommended hy a jury of "viewers." The persons who make this second view are called "reviewers," and compose the "jury of review."

See View. 3.

The revision of a judicial act. Bill of revie'w. A proceeding in a court of equity by which the defendant may have a decree against him reviewed for error upon its face. A^formal mode of rehearing the case, incidental to the original suit.^ A bill in the nature of a writ of error; its object is to procure an examination, and alteration or reversal, of a decree made upon a former bill, after such decree has been signed and enrolled.2 If the decree is not enrolled, a " biU in the nature of a bill of review," or a *' supplemental bill in the nature of a bill in review,"- is appropriate.' May be had upon error apparent upon the face of the decree; or,, by special leave of the court, upon oath made of the discbvery of new evidence, which could not possibly be had or used when the decree Lies for error in point of law apparent upon the record, or for some new matter of fact, relevant to the case, discovered since publication passed, and which could not, with reasonali)le diligence, have been discovered before. To enable the court to judge of the propriety of granting a rehearing, the petition must state the grounds upon which it is asked. The petitioner must also show that he has performed the decree, especiall.v as regards the payment of money and costs.'' "No bill of review shall be admitted unless the party first obeys and performs the decree, and enters into a recognizance with sureties, to satisfy the costs ' [Bush V. United States, 13 F. R, 628 (1883), Deady, D. J.: s. c. 8 Saw, 336. ' Story, Eq. PI. § 403. s 3 Bl. Com. 454. and damages for the delay if it be found against him." ' There is no universal and absolute rule which prohibits the court from allowing the introduction of newly -discovered evidence to prove facts which were in issue on the former hearing. The allowance is not a matter of right, hut of sound discretion, to be exercised cautiously and sparingly, and only under circumstances which demonstrate that it is indispensable to the merits and justice of the cause.' The bill will be refused, if productive of mischief to innocent parties, or for other cause sufficient to the court. 3 The only questions open for examination on a bill for error of law appearing upon the record are such as arise on the pleadings, proceedings, and decree, without reference to the evidence in the cause.^ A bill must ordinarily be brought within the time limited by statute for taking an appeal from the decree sought to be reviewed, where the review is not founded on matters discovered since the decree.® Court of review. A court whose distinctive function is to pass upon (ai Brming or reversing) the final decisions of another or other courts. 3. To examine a literary production and express (usually publish) an opinion as to its merits. A reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design is to use the passages for the purpose of fair and reasonable criticism. But if he thus cites the most important p^ts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review, such use will be deemed a-piracy." Where an action of libel respects a comment in a newspaper on a matter of public interest, the case is not one of privilege, properly so called, and it is not necessary, in order to give a cause of action, that actual malice be proved. The question whether the comment is or is not actionable depends upon whether,- in the opinion of the jurj', it goes beyond the limits of fair criticism. •' Whatever is fair and can be reasonably said of the works of an author or of himself as connected with his work, is not actionable, unless it appears that, under the pretext of criticising the ' Davis V. Speiden, 104 U. S. 84-86 (1881), cases: Bacon's Law Tracts, 280. 'Wood V. Mann, 2 Sumn. 334, 318-33 (18.S6), cases. Story, J-; Craig v. Smith, 100 U. S. 234 (1879), Waite, Chief Justice. "Story, Eq. PI. §417; Purcell v. Miner, 4 Wall. 521 (1866); Bicker v. Powell, 100 U. S. 107 (1879), cases- ' Shelton v. Van Kleeek, 106 U. S. 534 (1882), cases. See also Irwin v. Meyrose, 2 Mc Crary, 244, 260 (1881),, cases; Willamet Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 19 F. R. 347 (1884). ii Ensminger v. Powers, 108 U. S. 302 (1883), cases; Taylor v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co., 3 Mc Crary, 4S6 (1882), cases: s. c. 17 F. R. 566. work, the defendant took an opportunity of attacking the character of the author: then it will be iibel." ' See Abridge, 1; Dhama.