Ruckman v. Pitcher
New York Supreme Court
This was a motion by the defendant for a new trial, upon a bill of exceptions taken at the second trial of the cause, before the Hon. H. P. Edwards, at the Hew-York circuit in November, 1850. The facts are fully stated in the report of the case in the court of appeals, on error to the supreme court, after the first trial. (1 Comst. 392.) The evidence was substantially the same as on the former trial.
Read the full summary
This was a motion by the defendant for a new trial, upon a bill of exceptions taken at the second trial of the cause, before the Hon. H. P. Edwards, at the Hew-York circuit in November, 1850. The facts are fully stated in the report of the case in the court of appeals, on error to the supreme court, after the first trial. (1 Comst. 392.) The evidence was substantially the same as on the former trial. The judge, among other things, charged the jury that the plaintiff, if entitled to recover at all, was entitled to recover the whole sum which was paid or deposited by him with the defendant upon…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Roosevelt, J.
This was the case of a wager on a horse race. The controversy originated more than ten years ago; and, in the long interval, has furnished ample occupation for both bench and bar. It now presents itself in the shape of a motion for a new trial, on the part of the defendant, founded on a bill of exceptions, taken to the judge’s charge.
Under that charge the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for $3000, the whole 'amount deposited by the plaintiff in the hands of the stakeholder, who was the defendant, although the plaintiff, it appeared, had really contributed…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Betts v. Hillman.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1862