Case ID: njl_3/html/0103-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pennington, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BELL against VANRIPER. [386]
    Trial at bar, by a foreign jury, under special circumstances, not within the terms of the statute.
    It was moved on the part of the plaintiff, for a foreign jury, and also for a trial at bar, on the ground that the real parties were the East Jersey proprietors, plaintiffs, and the corporation of the town of Bergen, in Bergen county, defendants ; that the members of the corporation of Bergen had great influence in the county of Bergen, and therefore, that a fair and impartial trial could not be had by a jury from that county; that the cause [*] embraced matter of difficulty and importance, and therefore required a trial at bar.
    This was opposed by the counsel for the defendant. They contended that an impartial jury could be obtained from those towns in Bergen county, that had no interest in the controversy ; that even if a foreign jury was necessary, there could be no necessity for a trial at bar; the action was an action brought for the arrearges of rent, and depended on a plain instrument; besides, there was a legal objection to a trial at bar, all such trials being restrained by our act of Assembly, except the matter in controversy amounted to $3000; that the declaration in this case only charged $2800 for rent in arrear.
    The counsel for the plaintiff argued, that it was not the precise sum contained in the declaration that constituted the matter in controversy, but that any other interest collaterally in question, might be brought in; that although they did not charge as rent arrear more than $2800, yet the matter in controversy was the right to the future rent as well as that already due; and also damages for the detention of the rent.
    
      Kirkpatrick, C. J., and Rossell, J. Were of opinion, that both rules should be allowed.
   Pennington, J.

Concurred with his brethren in allowing a rule for a foreign jury; but it was decidedly against that for a trial at bar. In the first place, he did not think the plaintiff within the act of Assembly as ib respected the sum in controversy; but if he was, he could perceive no necessity for a trial at bar; he was of opinion that this court listened too readily to applications for trials at bar. Trials at bar were very expensive, and oftentimes oppressive and ruinous to the parties, by compelling the attendance of themselves, their counsel, witnesses, and jurors, at a great distance from their homes, and at an immense expense. Besides, since the practice had been obtained of reserving points at [387] circuit, there could be very little, if any use for trials at bar. If any difficulty arose at the circuit, the [*] point was reserved, and afterwards deliberately argued and decided at the bar.

Both rules allowed.

Distinguished in State Bank Trenton v. Evans, 2 Gr. 298.