Case ID: ri_26/html/0128-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n       Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patrick Rice vs. Union Railroad Company.
    PROVIDENCE
    APRIL 27, 1904.
    Present: Stiness, C. J., Tillinghast and Douglas, JJ.
    (1) New Trial. Statement of Evidence.
    
    A petition for new trial is not properly before the court where the statement of evidence and rulings has not been allowed by the justice who tried the cause, nor substantiated by affidavit, nor assented to by the other side.
    While it is not necessary in all cases to bring up a statement of all the evidence, it is necessary to bring up all the evidence which bears upon the questions on which the petitions depends.
    
      Trespass on the Case for negligence.
    Heard on petition of plaintiff for new trial, and denied.
    
      Thomas F. Farrell, for plaintiff. .
    
      Henry W. Hayes, Frank T. Easton, Lefferts S. Hoffman, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

This case is not properly before us, -the statement of evidence and rulings presented by the plaintiff not having been allowed by the justice who tried the cause, as required by General Laws cap. 251, § 6, nor substantiated by affidavit, as required by section 7 of said chapter. Nop is said statement assented to by defendant as being a full and complete statement of the evidence affecting the rulings in question.

While it is not necessary in all cases to bring up a statement of all the evidence taken in the case, it is necessary tó bring up a statement of .all the evidence which bears upon the questions on which the petition for a new trial, depends, as was done in Hackett v. Shaw, 24 R. I. 29. Vide certificate at the end of the testimony in that case.