Case Name: STILPHEN v. READ
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1892-01
Citations: 64 Vt. 400
Docket Number: 
Parties: STILPHEN v. READ.
Judges: 
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 400–401

Head Matter:
STILPHEN v. READ.
Practice. Exceptions. New trial.
1. When the record does not disclose what the exceptions taken and allowed in the County Court were, there is nothing for the Supreme Court to consider.
2. A petition for a new trial made and denied in the County Court will bar a similar petition in the Supreme Court for the same cause and supported by the same evidence.
Assumpsit. Trial by jury at the September term, 1890, Ross, J., presiding. Yerdict and judgment for the defendant. Exceptions by the plaintiff.
The defendant moved in the Supreme Court to dismiss the exceptions for that no question of law was presented by them.
At the same term of the County Court at which the trial was had, the plaintiff moved that court for a new trial in said cause and supported his petition by certain affidavits. This petition was denied by the County Court and no exception was taken. Subsequently he brought a petition for a new trial to the Januuary term of the Franklin County Supreme Court, 1891, which was heard with the exceptions. This last petition was sup ported by tlie affidavits of tlie same persons testifying to substantially the same facts as in the County Court.
M. Buck, for tlie plaintiff.
Hogan & Boyce, for the defendant.
The decision of tlie County Court denying the motion for a new trial was a bar to a similar proceeding in the Supreme Court upon the same evidence. Briggs v. Gleason, 27 Yt. 114 ; Hill, Admr. v. New Haven, 37 Yt. 501; Knapp v. Fisher, 49 Yt. 94; Giffords. Willard, 55 Yt. 36.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
TAFT, J.
The record shows a verdict for the defendant and a motion to set it aside. It argumentatively appears that there was judgment upon the verdict. It is stated in the record that exceptions were allowed, otherwise it does not appear that any were taken, and it is not disclosed what those allowed were. There is no legal question before us.
Judgment affirméd.
A petition for a new trial addressed to this court, was heard at the same time. The cause alleged was newly discovered evidence. A motion for a new trial was made in the County Court and denied. The allegations in the petition, and the proofs, are the same in both cases. We 'hold the proceedings in the County Court a bar to the petition now before' us, A party should not be a second time annoyed by the same claim, supported by the same testimony.
The petition is dismissed with costs '.