346
THE GREEN BAG
in the constitutions. This being taken for when dissatisfied with the verdict, because granted did not need to be verified. But the Appellate Court is not in a position to when anyone did inquire what the jury trial enforce it.1 Georgia said squarely that the was that is preserved by the constitutions, Constitution does not restrict the power of trial courts to grant new trials.2 New it has always been clear enough that: "Trial by jury in the primary and usual York said: "While the general rule should sense of the term at the common law and be preserved, it would not be safe to assert in the American constitutions, ... is a the uncontrollable supremacy of the jury. Both in England and in this country, trial by a jury of twelve men, in the pres ence and under the superintendence of a therefore, the court has always exercised judge empowered to instruct them on the the power of reviewing the evidence on a law and to advise them on the facts, and case made for the purpose, and of granting (except on acquittal of a criminal charge) a new trial where, upon a cool and deliberate to set aside their verdict if in his opinion it examination, the ends of justice seemed to is against the law or the evidence. " 1 require it."' But rather oddly none of Blackstone, who was writing of the very these decisions seem to have made much state of the law which is embalmed in our impression beyond the immediate case. Story pointed out early in the century constitutions, enumerates among the grounds for a new trial, "Also if it appear by the that the provision of the Federal Constitu judge's report certified to the court that tion that, "The Supreme Court shall have the jury have brought in a verdict without • appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact," is one of the things that came near or contrary to evidence, so that he is reason ably dissatisfied therewith. " He further preventing ratification for fear it abolished says that the former strictness of law courts jury trial in civil cases. So this was fixed in granting new trials having driven many by the 7th Amendment, providing ex pressly for jury trial in the federal courts, to equity for relief from oppressive ver dicts, they are now more liberal in granting and that, "No fact tried by a jury shall be them, "The maxim at present adopted being otherwise reexamined in any court of the this, that (in all cases of moment) where United States than according to the rules of justice is not done upon one trial, the the common law."4 As late as 1887 the Supreme Court of the United States said injured party is entitled to another. " 2 this prevented the Appellate Courts from This doctrine has been reasserted at inter granting new trials because the verdict is vals ever since, though in early days appli against the weight of the evidence, as is cations for a new trial were not so multi tudinous as now. Early in the last century frequently done in the state courts.5 It England again brought it to the front looks as if the attention of the court in rather emphatically by granting a new Capital Traction Co. v. Hof., 174 U. S. 1, trial in an important case merely because the may have been called to the true state of judge at the trial expressed a view contrary the law by the decision of Judge Taft in to the verdict, though to the reviewing Felton v. Spiro, 47 U. S. App. 402 ('97), court he reported himself not dissatisfied.3 in which he points out that judges set aside Tennessee pointed out that the trial court verdicts as being against the weight of the ought to be the more careful in enforcing the evidence as early as Lord Mansfield, and common law rule by granting a new trial 1 England i>. Burt, 4 Humph. 399 ('43). ' Spears v. Smith, 7 Ga. 436 C49). 1 Capital Traction Co. v. Hoi, 174 U. S. at 13 1 McDonald v. Walter, 40 N. Y. 551 ('69). To ('99)' 3 Blackstone, Commentaries, 387. the same effect: Bishop v. Busse, 69 Ill. 403 ('73). 3 Earl of Mount Edgecombe v. Symons, 1 4 Story, Constitution. 1763, et seq. » Met. R. R. Co. v. Moore, 121 U. S. 558. Price 278 ('15).
