The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1904-10-28

end to the litigation. contrary to the ver-
diets rendered by juries.
CASES CITED.
'The FIRST case which ! will cite In
which the court exercised the discretion
which II claims under the statute. was
the case OF Read vs.. the New York, New
Haven and Hartford Railroad company.
On July ID. 1897. after two trials and two
verdicts for the plaintiff. one for $1,000 and
the other for $1,000 the court ordered
Judgment entered for the defendant This
was four years after the passage OF the
judiciary act, and In all OF that four years
the court Lad used It's discretion very
sparingly. II at all
ION July %, 1901, in the case OF Barker
VS.. Lane. reporteu in % r. l. 224. the
court again exercised It's discretion In
ordering Judgment entered for the de-
fendant after verdict by the jury for the
plaintiff. The court In that case re-
counted In it's opinion how the case had
been In court for nine years and had been
tried ive times with varying results.
'On July 25. 1908. the court directed
judgment for the defendant in the case
of Gollawshaw VS.. Lonsdae company re-
ported In % r. l., 3s3, after a verdict by
a jury for $500
ION July IA, 1903, the court directed
judgment for the defendant In the case
OF Ennis VS. n. p. Little company re-
ported I'm 25 II. l.. 342. after verdict for
the plaintiff by jury for $1,000.
"On April 13, 1904, the court directed
Judgment for the defendant In the case
OF Gum VS.. Union Railroad company,
reported in 25 r.. l.. 1l2. after verdict
by jury for s10,500.
ION June H. 1904, the court directed
Judgment for the defendant I'm the case
of Poland VS. Union Railroad company,
reported IN 25 r. l.. 2l5. after verdict
by the jury for the plaintiff for $4,000.
IN CONCLUSION.
1t will be seen that the verdicts aegre-
ga ting over $4,000 awarded to plaintiffs
have been set aside by the court, and
Instead OF granting new trial the plain
tiffs have been thrown out of court and
the door Of justice barred against them
by the direction OF judgments by the
court
1T will also be observed that almost {
AL this discretion has been exercised by
the court during the administration OF
Chief Justice Stiness. and Furthermore
an alarming frequency OF overturning Jury
trials has developed within the last year
and a half
In view of this state of affairs. and
IN view OF the fact that Chief Justice
Stlness Is now candidate for congress
for the suffrages of the people. IL be-
comes a grave question. as TO whether
or not the candidate for congress can
give a good account Of his stewardship
to the people. The right OF trial by Jury
has not been maintained nviolate. That
the right OF the people OF this state 10
nave their causes determined by a fury
mas been grossly infringed upon by the
judiciary is perfectly apparent TO mem :
bers OF the Rhode Island bar. and as a
member Of that bar / call attention to
the fact In order that the tendency may
be arrested. cannot believe that Judge
Stiness is a safe man with whom 10 en- :.
trust the cause OF the people In view of
the TACT, that he. as Judge. has gone so
iar In the direction OF vitiating trials bv
jury
AT the conclusion of Mr.. Williams
speech Congressman Granger made a few
orlef remarks upon the progress OF the
campaign.