stages. 101 In Connecticut the same system prevailed, although with only slight 
statutory support. 102 Special verdicts were not unknown in New England; 
indeed, several conciliar appeals from Rhode Island were from special verdicts 
103 But an internal appeal upon a special verdict might be regarded as 
conflicting with the prevailing use of juries upon such appeals. 104 In this connection 
should be remembered the Rhode Island attitude toward appeals in 
cases of pleas in bar and pleas in abatement. 105 
However, as appears from Vassail v. Fletcher, a 1754 Massachusetts appeal, 
practice might modify somewhat these statutory frames. In this case Fletcher 
brought an action for defamation in the Inferior Court of Common Pleas 
101 Acts and Laws R.I. (1730), 13 (fees for 
every evidence read in court), 23, 192, 194. 
102 See Acts and haws Col. Conn. (1702), 3, 
2 3> 36 (fees for filing and for copies of testimony 
in Superior Court); Acts and Laws 
Conn. (1729), 169. The records of the Court 
of Assistants or Superior Court preserved at 
the Connecticut State Library reveal the practice 
clearly. 
103 Torrey v. Mumford (MS R.I. Sup. Ct. Jud. 
Judgment Boo\, 1725-41, 433, 443); Coggeshall 
v. Coggeshall (ibid., 588-89); Potter 
v. Brayton (ibid., 1741-46, 274-75); Mawny 
v. Willcox (ibid., 325); Babcock v. Pitkin 
(ibid., 1754-72, 3); Easton v. Howland (ibid., 
4). 
104 In February, 1770, John Randal, in a 
petition to the General Assembly, set forth 
that in an action of trover and conversion 
against Matthew Robinson the jury at the 
August, 1769, term of the Inferior Court of 
Common Pleas returned a special verdict; that 
upon this verdict the court gave judgment 
for the plaintiff for $80 and costs of suit taxed 
at X 2 / T 5/ _ - Both parties appealed to the 
Superior Court of October, 1769, where petitioner 
expected the cause to be submitted to 
his peers with such new and fresh evidence as 
he might procure, but that court upon defendant's 
motion ordered the special verdict 
given below to be argued. Thus petitioner 
was precjuded from a trial by his peers on 
the original pleadings, "although your petitioner 
strongly remonstrated against the same 
as unconstitutional, contrary to law and the 
undoubted right of every English subject." 
Petitioner conceived that the judgment was 
"the first of its kind ever known and heard 
of in the colony of Rhode Island or in any 
part of the British dominions where appeals 
are allowed and had. That depriving this subject 
of a tryal by his peers is subversive of the 
rights of Englishmen, dearer to Englishmen 
than life, and which history, and even our 
own times in this day of struggle for American 
liberty has given sufficient and ample 
demonstrations of, no one will deny." Petitioner 
prayed vacation of the Superior Court 
judgment and trial of the cause at the next 
Superior Court upon the issue joined in the 
Inferior Court with such new evidence as 
might be produced, and that execution be 
stayed. The petition was accordingly granted 
(MS Petitions to R.I. General Assembly, 
1768-70, #146). 
Following the Assembly action a trial was 
had at the Superior Court in April, 1771, 
where a verdict for plaintiff Randal of £38 
lawful money and costs was given. Defendant 
moved the court that no judgment be had on 
the verdict, but that a new trial be awarded, 
since the jury had greatly mistaken and misconceived 
the law operative in consequence of 
the facts appearing and agreed to in the 
cause. The court set aside the verdict and 
granted a new trial. Randal, in another petition 
to the Assembly, complained of this as 
very prejudicial to him, since juries were most 
certainly judges of both law and fact. Further, 
every verdict given by a jury contrary to the 
mind or opinion of the court might be set 
aside which would annihilate every idea of 
the benefit of trial by jury. At any rate, upon 
motion of defendant for judgment on the 
special verdict, further jury trial was refused. 
Petitioner's counsel refusing to argue the 
special verdict, judgment was given for defendant. 
Upon this petition a new jury trial 
in the Superior Court was granted (ibid., 
1772-7s, #50). See also the reasons of appeal 
in Hedges v. Dyer (MS R.I. Law Cases, 
1736. #25). 
105 See supra, p. 161.