(Download) "Saverio R. Romano v. Littleton" by Court of Appeals of New York * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Saverio R. Romano v. Littleton
- Author : Court of Appeals of New York
- Release Date : January 01, 1949
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 56 KB
Description
The finding of the Trial Court concerning the total dependency of the widow should stand unless so clearly erroneous that it could not reasonably be made. The case of Veazie v. Staples, 309 Mass. 123, has been cited in oral argument to the effect that where all evidence of substantial importance was contained in public records, documents and depositions a question of fact of a divorce would be decided in the Supreme Court without deference to the decision of the Probate Judge. Such is not the procedure in this state. It is true that in the present case there was no direct testimony presented orally in the Superior Court. Yet the question of dependency is one of fact and within the jurisdiction of that court to determine. In the case of Howard v. Farr, 18 N.H. 457, 459, an agreed statement of the evidence was submitted to the Trial Judge. In the law court it was held: "We therefore cannot undertake to consider the evidence contained in the case, further than to ascertain that it is such as might justify a verdict either way. The court will not assume to pronounce upon the weight of evidence." "It was for the superior court to determine the facts as to dependency, and the finding cannot be set aside when the evidence is not conclusive against it. " Lapoint v. Winn, 81 N.H. 357, 359. Such issue of fact is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court regardless of the manner in which the evidence is presented. "The judicial system as now established requires that questions of fact arising in the course of trials in the superior court shall be there decided, and the jurisdiction of the supreme court is thereby limited to the question of law, whether there was evidence upon which the decision could reasonably be made as it was made." Nawn v. Railroad, 77 N.H. 299, 304. See also, Crowley v. Crowley, 72 N.H. 241; Champollion v. Corbin, 71 N.H. 78; Martin v. Livingston, 68 N.H. 562.