New Trial--Rules of Supreme Court--Orders of Judges--Relaxation of Rules.
Case of Louise Sylvester, Plaintiff, against George S. Pinyuh, Defendant. On motions to vacate certain Rules and Orders.
Mr. Harry R. Cooper for Plaintiff.
Mr. William J. Hanley, Mr. O. J. Pellet and Mr. Harlan Besson for Defendant.
Heard before Justices Trenchard, Bergen and Minturn.
PER CURIAM: This is a motion by the defendant to vacate certain rules heretofore made in the above entitled cause, and a counter motion by the plaintiff to strike out the restraint imposed upon her in a rule to show cause granted by Mr. Justice Minturn on the 25th day of October, 1921, and for permission to perfect her proceeding for a new trial. The facts are substantially as follows:
In September, 1921, the case (a Supreme Court issue) was tried in the Monmouth Pleas on an order of reference made by a Justice of the Supreme Court.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff, on the 22d day of September, applied to the trial Judge for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, which order was allowed by the trial Judge and was made returnable before him on the 6th day of October, 1921.
On the return day of the rule, the attorney for the defendant appeared before the Judge and objected to his hearing the rule on the ground that, it being a Supreme Court issue, the rule must be heard by the Supreme Court. Judge Lawrence reserved decision in the matter, and thereafter came to the conclusion that the action had become a Common Pleas case, and that the rule could properly be heard before him, and fixed October 7th, 1921, for the hearing of same.
In the meantime defendant's attorney procured from Mr. Justice Minturn a rule to show cause, returnable before the Supreme Court on the first Tuesday of November, 1921, why judgment should not be entered in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff on the postea, and why the trial Judge should not sign the postea, and restraining the plaintiff from further proceedings until the further order of the Court. A copy of this rule was served upon Judge Lawrence and he thereupon concluded that the rule must be heard before the Supreme Court, and he signed the postea.