
    Alexander Eddy, Administrator, vs. John Wilkinson.
    "When a litigant desires relief from error of law on the part of the court, and of fact on the part of the jury, he should petition for a new trial, alleging the erroneous rulings of the court as one reason for the new trial, and alleging the verdict to be against the evidence as another reason, supporting the allegations with a report of the evidence.
    Dependant’s petition for a new trial.
    
      July 6, 1889.
   Per Curiam.

In this case, on trial in the Court of Common Pleas, exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court, and the case was brought here upon a bill of exceptions, so that it is no longer pending in the Court of Common Pleas. The judgment of that court has been affirmed in this court. The petition for a new trial, if maintainable, must be at least amended before it can be applied to the present state of the case. The more proper procedure where a party wishes for a new trial, both on account of alleged erroneous rulings and because the verdict is against the evidence, is for him to petition, simply alleging the erroneous rulings as one ground, and that the verdict is against the evidence, accompanying the allegation with a report of the evidence, as another ground. Elliott v. Benedict, 13 R. I. 463.

Charles H. Page Eranklin P. Owen, for plaintiff.

Charles A. Wilson, Thomas A. Jenekes ¿f Samuel S. Stone, for defendant.  