Ex parte Ward
New York Supreme Court
In trover, by Ward against Esty, in the Ontario 0. P Howell, First Judge, a counsellor at law of this Court, was v ' 7 not present at the trial, or any part of it; but the verdict f01" the plaintiff, he consented, on a motion afterwards made, that a new trial should be granted, on the merits.
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The proviso relied upon is, “ that no new trial shall be granted, otherwise than for irregularity, unless one of the judges present and concurring, shall be of the degree of counsellor at law in the Supreme Court of this state.” ■ This presence and concurrence are referable to the time of granting the motion; not the time of trial. It must depend on the judge’s own discretion, upon the means of information, and circumstances of the case whether he will interfere. We deny the motion, but without costs.
Motion denied.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Elnora G. POPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- 74 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1035, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,623 Aloysius L. Maschka, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Genuine Parts Company, Doing Business as Napa Auto Parts, Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1997
- Elnora G. POPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- Harper v. LinDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
- In re Road in West Brunswick TownshipSchuylkill County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1873