Case Name: Nicholas McCloskey vs. Charles P. Moies, Town Treasurer
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1898-11-22
Citations: 21 R.I. 79
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nicholas McCloskey vs. Charles P. Moies, Town Treasurer.
Judges: Present: Matteson, C. J., Stiness and Tillinghast, JJ.
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 79–80

Head Matter:
Nicholas McCloskey vs. Charles P. Moies, Town Treasurer.
PROVIDENCE
NOVEMBER 22, 1898.
Present: Matteson, C. J., Stiness and Tillinghast, JJ.
(1) Jury Trial Waived. Findings of Presiding Justine. New Trial. Gonjlieling Fvidence.
The finding of the presiding justice, in a case wherein jury trial has been waived, takes the place of and has the same effect as the verdict of a jury.
Unless the decision so rendered is clearly wrong, a petition for a new trial, based upon alleged error in the finding, cannot be granted.
A decision cannot be said to be wrong where the case is so close that different minds might honestly arrive at different conclusions thereon.
Trespass on ti-ie Case for negligence in failing to keep a highway safe and convenient for travellers. The defect complained of was a hollow in the sidewalk of a bridge, in which water accumulated and froze, and plaintiff’s injury was from a fall by slipping on this ice. At a previous trial plaintiff was nonsuited, but on bis petition lie was granted a new trial. 19 R. I. 297. Subsequently the parties waived a jury trial, and the presiding judge, at the hearing which followed, filed a decision for the defendant. Plaintiff petitioned for a new trial.
Hugh J. Carroll, for plaintiff.
Walter B. Vincent, for defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We cannot say that the court erred in its decision of this case. Under the facts as found, it does not conclusively appear that the defect complained of was of such a character as to render the town liable for the accident in question, and hence it was competent for the presiding justice to find that there was no negligence on the part of the town. And he having so found, his judgment upon this question, in case there is a petition for a new trial, takes the place of the verdict of a jury and has the same effect. Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 451, § 3. The plaintiff's petition, therefore, cannot be granted unless the decision is clearly wrong, and we do not think it is. It is a close case and one upon which different minds might honestly arrive at different conclusions, as is clearly shown by the fact that it has been tried by three different juries and has resulted in a disagreement on each trial.
The petition for a new trial is denied and j udgment ordered for the defendant on the decision.