Case Name: Nehemiah Hazen et Uxor, Reviewers, against Peter Smith and Josiah Caswell, Reviewees
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1802-07
Citations: 2 Tyl. 59
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nehemiah Hazen et Uxor, Reviewers, against Peter Smith and Josiah Caswell, Reviewees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tyler
Volume: 2
Pages: 59–60

Head Matter:
Nehemiah Hazen et Uxor, Reviewers, against Peter Smith and Josiah Caswell, Reviewees.
Vide ante, vol. 1. p. 105.
Upon the review of a cause decided upon demurrer, and resting on the same pleadings, the Court will not prohibit the counsel from arguing it again.
Vermont Stat. vol. 1. p. 53. chap. vi.
DEBT on recognisance entered by a private informer, in pursuance of an order of a Justice of the Peace holding a Court of Inquiry.
Demurrer to the declaration.
This cause was argued and determined upon the same pleadings in favour of the reviewees, in this County, January term, 1801. And now,
Cook, for the reviewees,
insisted, that as the issue embraced points in law only, which had been solemnly argued and decided by the Court, the Court would not now proceed to hear the same points argued ; for this would be tantamount to the sustaining a writ of error to reverse the judgment of this Court in matters of law; but that the Court would consider the review as entered merely for the purposes of delay, and would without further hearing affirm the judgment of the Court already delivered.

Opinion:
Sed per Curiam.
The third section of the judiciary act secures the right of review in all civil causes originally commenced before the County Court, and brought by appeal to this Court, with certain exceptions, which do not embrace this case, and the Court cannot deprive a party of this right, with the privileges incident to it.
In our judicial system, several trials are allowed, in order to afford the parties time to cast all the light upon the subject litigated, of which it may be capable by the adduction of evidence, or the application of arguments or authorities, and also that the Judges may have such view of the subject, as that they may be enabled to administer the law correctly.
Daniel Chipman and Chauncey Langdon, for plaintiffs.
and John Cook, for defendants,
The case of a review of a judgment rendered on an issue at law, cannot compare with a writ of error brought to reconsider a bench decision, as a review supposes the cause not to have been sufficiently investigated. But before a writ of error can be brought, the parties have had the opportunities of several trials, and the law will presume that the legal points in the cause have been sufficiently considered and solemnly decided,
The exceptions in demurrer were argued, and the Court decided the declaration sufficient. At February term, 1803, the bond was chancered to 100 dols. 92 cts.
Judgment for the plaintiff.