32:T50a,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"City of Boston v. Robbins, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 96","datePublished":"1874-11-24","legislationDate":"1874-11-24","citation":"City of Boston v. Robbins, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 96 (Mass. 1874)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court","description":"Read the full text of City of Boston v. Robbins (City of Boston v. Robbins, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 96 (Mass. 1874)). This legal opinion, filed in 1874-11-24, from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/city-of-boston-v-robbins--6417875"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/city-of-boston-v-robbins--6417875","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, City of Boston v. Robbins, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, City of Boston v. Robbins, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 96 (Mass. 1874)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T4d9, Gray, C. J.

A petition for a review j like a motion for a new trial, is addressed to the discretion of the presiding judge. His rulings upon specific points of law raised at the hearing upon the *315petition, such as the power to allow an amendment, or the competency of evidence, may be revised on exceptions. Davenport v. Holland, 2 Cush. 1. Gray v. Moore, 7 Gray, 215. Richardson v. Lloyd, 99 Mass. 475. But if upon a petition in due form, and competent evidence, the judge is of opinion that the petitioner has a substantia] defence to the action upon the merits, which by accident and mistake, and without fault on his part, he has had no opportunity of presenting to the court and jury, it is within the discretion of the judge to grant a review, without passing in advance upon the questions of law or fact which may be involved in the trial of the case; and to the exercise of his discretion in this respect no exception lies. Brewer v. Holmes, 1 Met. 288, 291. Hutchinson v. Gurley, 8 Allen, 23.

Exceptions overruled.