Mathews v. Tripp

Decision Date06 February 1879
Citation12 R.I. 256
PartiesJOSEPH G. MATHEWS v. BENJAMIN TRIPP, City Treasurer of the City of Providence.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court

The repeal of Gen. Stat. R.I. cap. 210, § 1, which gave suitors in the Supreme Court a second jury trial as of course, is not a violation of Art. I. § 15 of the Constitution of the State which provides that " the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate."

Outline of legislation governing jury trials in the Supreme Court.

PLAINTIFF'S petition for a new trial.

The repeal of Gen.St. c. 210, § 1, which gave suitors in the Supreme court a second trial as of course, does not contravene Const. art. 1, § 15, providing that " the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate."

Edward H. Hazard & Charles H. Parkhurst, for plaintiff.

Nicholas Van Slyck, City Solicitor of the city of Providence for defendant.

DURFEE C. J.

This is a petition for the new trial of a case in which the plaintiff sues the city of Providence for damages for an injury resulting from the defective condition of a sidewalk. The action was commenced in the Supreme Court, August 3, 1878 and tried to the jury at the present term and the jury found a verdict for the defendant. Within forty-eight hours after verdict the plaintiff filed this petition. He claims the right to a new trial as of course under Gen. Stat. R.I. cap. 210, § 1. Section 1 was repealed, except as to pending cases, previous to the commencement of this action, by Public Laws R.I. cap. 674, April 12, 1878. The plaintiff, however, contends that the repealing statute is void, because it infringes section 15 of article 1 of the Constitution of the State, which ordains that " the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate," and that he is therefore entitled to a new trial as of course, the same as if the repealing statute had never been passed.

Section 1 of chapter 210 is as follows, to wit:

" In all cases in which actions originally commenced in the Supreme Court shall be answered, the party against whom a verdict has been rendered, shall, by filing a written motion with the clerk of the court in which such verdict is rendered, within forty-eight hours after the rendition of such verdict and payment of the entry fixed by law for the entry of appeals in the Supreme Court, be entitled, as of course, to a new trial in such action."

This provision was first enacted in 1847. The Constitution went into operation in 1843. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution the Supreme Court, or, as it was then called, the Supreme Judicial Court, had only appellate jurisdiction in civil jury cases, original jurisdiction being conferred in 1847. Previously, the course of procedure was to commence the action, if the amount involved exceeded twenty dollars, in the Court of Common Pleas, and for either party aggrieved by the judgment to appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. There was thus opportunity for two jury trials, one in the Court of Common Pleas and the other in the Supreme Judicial Court; but it was in the power of either party to prevent the jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas by submitting to judgment and taking an appeal. Even this, however, did not exhaust the privilege of jury trial. For either party aggrieved by the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court was entitled within one year to review the same, " and have one trial more in the same court." Digest of 1822, p. 133. There was no further trial except for cause. Trial by review was abolished by the revision of 1844, after the adoption of the Constitution. There is no tradition that it occurred to anybody that the abolition was unconstitutional. Yet it clearly was so if the plaintiff's argument is valid. The people, however, evidently cherished the privilege of two jury trials; for when original jurisdiction in civil actions was subsequently conferred on the Supreme Court, the statute conferring it contained the provision for a second jury trial as of course. The design was, doubtless, to put actions commenced in the Supreme Court on a par in this respect with actions commenced in the Court of Common Pleas.

It...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Advisory Opinion to Senate
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1971
    ...of the jury trial described in our constitution our court has said that trial by jury is a 'well known kind of trial.' Mathews v. Tripp, 12 R.I. 256 (1879). The inviolability provision of section 15 has been held to be a guarantee that a petit jury will continue to be constituted substantia......
  • Horton v. Old Colony Bill Posting Co.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1914
    ...This rule is recognized in the following cases: Littlefield v. Peckham, 1 R. I. 500, 506; Crandall v. James, 6 R. I. 144, 148; Mathews v. Tripp, 12 R. I. 256; Bishop v. Tripp, 15 R. I. 466-469, 8 Atl. 692; In re State House Commissioners, 19 R. I. 326, 334, 33 Atl. 448; The Narragansett Ind......
  • Lommen v. Minneapolis Gaslight Company
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1896
    ...684; People v. Hoffman, 3 Mich. 248; Randall v. Kehlor, 60 Me. 37; Foster v. Morse, 132 Mass. 354; Dortic v. Lockwood, 61 Ga. 293; Mathews v. Tripp, supra; Beers Beers, supra. The constitutionality of laws in this state was never questioned. O'Brien v. City of Minneapolis, 22 Minn. 378; Mar......
  • McCloud, In re
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • July 26, 1972
    ...Refining Co. v. Director of Public Works, 98 R.I. 167, 200 A.2d 580 (1964); Mathewson v. Ham, 21 R.I. 311, 43 A. 848 (1899); Mathews v. Tripp, 12 R.I. 256 (1879). It was not until some 73 years thereafter that a more definitive parens patriae concept brought about the enactment of P.L.1915,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT