New Trial - Definition - Law Dictionary Home Dictionary Definition new-trial

Definition :

New trial. If any defect of judgment happen from causes wholly extrinsic, i.e., arising from matters foreign to or dethors the record, the only remedy the party injured by it has (except formerly error coram nobis or vobis in some few cases) is by applying to the Court for a new trial, which is in substitution for a bill of exceptions. But the Court must be satisfied that there are strong probable grounds to suppose that the merits have not been fairly and fully discussed, and that the decision is not agreeable to the justice and truth of the case before they will grant a new trial.

The following is a summary of the cases in which a new trial may be granted. They are all subject to the rule that in an action of contract, unless some right independent of the damages be in question, the amount in dispute must be 20l. at least for the Court to interfere.

(1) Mistakes, etc., of a judge. If a judge misdirect a jury, even in a penal action, it is generally a good ground for a new trial. So if a judge improperly nonsuit a plaintiff. So if a judge should admit improper evidence, or reject evidence which ought to be admitted, by which means the result of the trial or inquiry has been different from what it otherwise would have been. It is expressly provided by the Rules of the Supreme Court, however, that a new trial 'shall not be granted on the ground of misdirection or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or because the verdict of the jury was not taken upon a question which the judge at the trial was not asked to leave to them, unless in the opinion of the court to which the application is made some substantial wrong or miscarriage has been thereby occasioned by the trial of the action'. [(English) R.S.C. 1883, Ord. XXXIX., r. 6]

(2) Default or misconduct of the officer of the Court. As where a cause is, by mistake, entered in a wrong list, and the cause is tried as undefended in the defendant's absence.

(3) Default or misconduct of the jury. If a juror has been sworn by a wrong surname, and it has been productive of some injustice. If a jury find a verdict 'against the weight of evidence,' but in this case, more than in any other, the Court will be very reluctant to grant the new trial. For excessive damages and for the smallness of the damages, if out of all proportion to the injury. For the misconduct of the jury, as if they had eaten or drunk at the expense of the party for whom they had afterwards found a verdict, or if they determine their verdict by lot, or if any of them had declared that the plaintiff should never have a verdict.

(4) Absence, etc., of counsel or solicitor. The instances are very rare in which the Court has granted a new trial on this ground.

(5) Default or misconduct of the opposite party. If a party, for whom a verdict is afterwards given deliver to the jury, after they have left the box, evidence which had not been adduced in court, a new trial will be granted. So if he have laboured the jury, or used improper influence with them. So if he had misled or taken by surprise the opposite party. So where no notice of trial has been given: but if the defendant appear to defend, this irregularity is waived.

(6) Default or misconduct of witnesses. The general rule is, that a new trial will not be granted on the ground that evidence has not been given that might have been given at the trial, for the plaintiff ought, if unprepared with his evidence, either to make application to postpone the trial before the jury are sworn, or should withdraw his record and not take the chance of a verdict. The Court has granted a new trial where it appeared clearly that the plaintiff's case was a mere fiction supported by perjury, which the defendant could not at the time of the trial be prepared to answer.

(7) Discovery of new evidence after the trial. A new trial will seldom be granted where a verdict has been given against a party, or a plaintiff has been no suited for want of evidence which might have been produced at the trial, because it would tend to introduce perjury. But if new evidence have been discovered after the trial, the Court will grant a new trial (which has usually been upon payment of costs) if it be necessary, in order to do justice between the parties; but the discovery of witnesses who can contradict those produced on the former trial seems to be no ground for a new trial, nor will the Court grant a new trial to let a party into a defence of which he was apprised at the first trial.

(8) Where one of several issues, etc., has been wrongfully decided. A new trial may be ordered on any question in an action, whatever be the grounds for the new trial, without interfering with the finding or decision upon any other question. [(English) R.S.C. 1883, Ord. XXXIX., r. 7]

(9) Where there has been a previous new trial. If the jury on the second trial find for the party against whom the former verdict was given, the Court, if the case be doubtful, or the second verdict do not accord with the justice of the case, may be induced to grant a third trial, but this is entirely in the discretion of the Court, even after two concurring verdicts.

(10) Where a party has been taken by surprise.

A new trial may be awarded for the same causes, after inquiry before the sheriff, as after a verdict.

As to time and manner of moving for a new trial, see Ord. XXXIX. The time for applying for a new trial runs from the verdict of the jury, and not from the giving of judgment, Greene v. Croome, (1908) 1 KB 277.

The motion must be made to the Court of Appeal. See Ord. XXXIX., r. 1 (trial without jury); Jud. Act, 1925, s. 30 (1) (replacing Jud. Act, 1890, s. 1). New trials in criminal cases are abolished by s. 20 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 23). See CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT. As to new trial in County Court, see C.C.R., Ord. XXXI.; Brown v. Dean, 1910 AC 373.