Case ID: njl_7/html/0416-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kinsey, O. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Den, on the demise of Rossell against Inslee.
    No trial at bar to be allowed in any case where the amount in controversy, on the property in dispute, is not worth three thousand dollars.
    This was a motion for a trial at bar. It was conceded, that the value of the lands in dispute was less than three thousand dollars, the amount specified in the third section of the act of June 6th, "1799. Pat. 393.
    *The plaintiff, however, grounded’ his application upon certain facts, which he considered as sufficient to entitle him to this mode of trial.
    
      For the motion.
    
    On a former trial at the Circuit Court, a verdict passed for the defendant, because of an outstanding unexpired lease. Since that time the cause had been three times postponed, once because not regularly noticed, and twice because his Honor Judge Kirkpatrick, who presided, was challenged on the ground of having been concerned as counsel in the cause. This tedious delay, and the prospect of a much longer one, before the case can be heard,-will render a denial of this application tantamount to a denial of justice. We have done all in our power to bring the controversy to a termination, but without success. The act did not mean to preclude the court from ordering a trial at bar, when extraordinary circumstances rendered it necessary. The issue in this case, also, was joined previous to the passing of the act, and it ought not, therefore, to be included in its provisions.
   Kinsey, O. J.

The third section of the act of June last extends not only to issues hereafter to be joined, but embraces in its very terms every issue which hath been or shall be joined,” and it expressly directs the trial to be had in the proper' county, unless the Supreme Court shall think proper to order a trial at bar. This power, however, is expressly limited to actions in whicli “ the property or matter in dispute shall be of the value of three thousand dollars.” The language of the act is preciso and imperative, and we cannot allow a dispensation from its provisions in any case.

Rule refused.