The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-06-24
THE COURTS.

C1RCU1r COURT-Juuge WVte.-On oat
urday the court opened at 1Oi o'clock.
Judge Wiley delivered the opinion Of the court
In the case Of Thomas Green vs.. Fanny Green.
We stated In our Issue Of Thursday the facts
Of this case. The Court said that as to the first
ground Of motion for new trial, that the verdict
was against evidence, the Court did not think so.
The second ground, that the jury erred In ind.
ing verdict Of 800 for the defendant out OF
her Offset, because, % the jury found that tho
plaintiff owed no debt to the defendant, there
could DO no mutual debts as required by the
statute to authorize q verdict upon the Offset,
was not, in the opinion Of the Court, sufficiently
oogeut 10 authorize the granting Of new trial.
| In this case the plaintiff claimed $500 for money
lent, and sT5 for money had and received BY the
plaintiff for the use Of the defendants the dc.
PENDANT replied that she owed plaintiff nothing,
but that the plaintiff was indebted TO her In sl6b
for board and for mending done Al the request Of
the plsintid for bis brother. The jury, in this
case, found a verdict against the plaintiff for
800, but whether that sum was arrived al BY
deciding asaluE'ths whole claim Of tbs plaintiff,
or BY admitting portion Of the plaintiff claim,
and d portion Of the defendants claim, and CIV.
Ing . verdict for the balance which was due
upon q comparison Of tho portions so admitted,
the Court could not undertake to decide. II 10
tue that the general rule which governs the
American, as II docs the English statute, does
to be Gel. of against debts; but the value gives
| construction Of the words debt and ''unliqui.
| datedr damages. By this construction, any
| claim which 10 ascertainable without tho intor.
vention of legal proceedings, is not "uuliqui.
dated, but a" debt" which Is matter Of of.
set against other debts OF ascertained amount.
But even supposing that II were ascertained that
the jury did In fact consider that the defendant
owed no debt to the plaintiff, IL could not be
| conceded that q now trial should DO granted
upon that ground, for counsel would admit that
| II the Jury found the defendant owed the plain.
tilt ono dollar, the Offset would be admissible
by parity Of reasoning II would be admissible II
| the defendant owed one cent. Now, when II
usuIo uiuo point as tnat, nDoraI con-
struction TO promote tho end intended by the
legislature was evidently the proper one, and
such n construction would DO given iu this case
The Court therefore overrulod the motion for a
new trial.
| Adams and James L. Williams for the plain.
tiff; Phillips for tho defendant.
The court also delivered its judgment In the
case Of Joseph d. Crowell Qessoe Of Randall vs.
| Samuel SCOTT, trustee.
Merriman for plaintiff; Swami for defendant
This case was argued on Thursday, and oui
epitome Of the proceedings of that day sets forth
all tho facts
1t appeared, said the court in this case thai
| Scott being in possession Of q house on CApito
Hill, by his tenant, and furniture Of the tenant
therein, though tho tenant had left tho hous,
| temporarily, Intending to return, and loft the
front door locked but the back door open, Mr.
| Randall entered the house, held II against III
legal possessor, and rented It to the plaintiff
Under these circumstances, Scott brought an &C
tioD before justice, under the statute Of July
4, 1854. to recover possession, and the justice
gave judgment for the possession From thiI
judgment an appeal Is mado to this court, and
upon the appeal being entered hero Crowell files
q plea Of tile. He did not attempt to make
claim Of tile before tho justice. Had he done
SO he must, under the statute, have entered into
surety to indemnify Scott against tho loss Of in
termediate rents, costs, &c But IL the Cling Of
such plea were admitted, the plaintiff would be
allowed to test the title as effectively as hc could
in ejectment, without giving tho surety which
the law requires to protect the interests Of the
other party. Such plea Is so much waste paper
and should DO taken from tho papers in tho case
The decision Of the justice below was correct
and Is affirmed.
A motion for rule against Constable Cox tc
show cause why he should not be removed frou
Office for the non payment Of money collected BY
him was dismissed II being stated that the
money had been paid over.
The court then took the motion for new tria
In tho case Of james Corbit VS.. Tho BaltimOr,
and Ohio Railroad Company. Mossrs. Philips
and Dayidge for plaintiff; Messrs Buchanuu an(
Cox for defendant.
This casa was tried some weeks since. It Il
an action for damages suffered by COrbt in
collision between a wagon in which he was rid
ing and a train on the Washington Branch rail
road. Corbit was much injured, and the jur.
found verdict against the railroad company o
$500.
At the time of the rendition Of the verdict mo
tion was made for new trial That motioi
came up for argument on Saturday. The defond
ants asked new trial on the grounds:
LIST. That tho verdict was contrary to the in
structions of the court. I'd. 1t was against tn
law and tho evidence. ID, 1t was against tn
evidence. ith II was against the weight Of tn
evidence. 9Th. Newly discovered evidence. 9th
The damages given were excessive.
The evidence alleged to be newly discovered
as set forth in an affidavit filed in tho cause, wa
in substance that one Harrison, the driver o
the wagon from which COrbit was precipitate
by the collision, would testify that he OlarrisOn
knew the train was near at hand when he ut
tempted to drive across the track, but suppose
that he had time to get over before the trail
reached the crossing
The motion for a new trial was argued b.
MesSrs. Cox and Buchanan for the motion. an
Messrs. DAvidge and Phillips in opposition.
The Court said that II was seldom that q case
of greater difficulty came before the Court thai
when poor man was engaged in litigation witt
| a rich corporation to obtain damages, which Will
they would secure the comforts Of life to the on
would scarcely diminish the plethoric revenue
| OF the other. Such cases appealed strongly +
sympathies OF the Court, and with greater fore
TO those Of jury. II, then, the Court felt Il
such cases the need Of constant care to hol'
evenly the balance Of justice, how much NOR
difficult was such work for the jury. But sym
pathies must not work injustice, even in favor O
poor man against a rich corporation. II tn
parties in this case had been equal In wealth n
difficulty would have been experienced In deter
mining 1t. He was satisfied that the verdict i
the case was most clearly against the weight Q
the evidence. This imposed duty on the Court
and the Court could not shrk 1t, Although
feeling for the poor man, who was the sufferer b.
the unfortunate accident, as profoundly US an
one could feel, the Court was compelled to ga
that he had no right on that evidence to rocoye
damages at all, and on that account II no othe
the verdict must be set aside.
Tho ground Of newly discovered evidence, an
the proof filed in support Of 1t, also appeared a.
additional reason for granting new trial Thi
evidence, though cumulative as to some points
opened new line Of defence and was availabl,
for that reason, especially as the new wtnes
had been missing since the accident, and du
diligence would not have occurred his attendance
upon tho original trial. AS to the time in whicl
II was necessary the motion for a new tria
should be made, the act Of Congress authorizes
such q motion at any time during the term, ant
this enactment would override q contrary rul
! OF the court, II any such rule existed. Th
reasons for the trial could, the court thought
be amended or added to at any time by leave 0
the court. II was Il question for the courts dis
erection. The amount of damages given woull
not have induced the court to grant new trial