50 
Indiana University Studies 
in confession and avoidance, on the ground that the facts set up in the 
plea or answer were totally insufficient to constitute a justification, ex- 
cuse or discharge. Here too the question would be essentially the same 
as on a general demurrer to the plea, except that the court would in- 
dulge every reasonable presumption to support the pleading. In this 
case too the court might render an opinion which would be reported. 
Under the codes, a provision is frequently found authorizing the 
court after verdict to order judgment notwithstanding the verdict if 
upon the evidence it ought to have directed the jury to return a verdict 
in favor of the party against whom it was in fact returned. 
Motion for New Trial. Under modern practice the defeated party 
may usually make a motion for a new trial either before or after judg- 
ment has been entered upon the verdict. This motion is usually made 
on the ground that the trial court over the objection and exception of 
the movant made erroneous rulings during the trial, for example, in 
receiving inadmissible evidence, or in giving the jury an improper in- 
struction. 
Judgment. If the motions made after the rendition of the verdict 
are denied, Student will cause judgment to be entered upon the verdict. 
The verdict, of course, is merely a finding of the jury. In Student 
against Policeman, it will read: “We, the jury, find a verdict in favor 
of plaintiff and assess his damages at $5,000.” The judgment is an 
order of the court that a party do have certain relief; it will read in 
part: “It is ordered and adjudged that plaintiff, Samuel Student, have 
and recover of defendant, Peter Policeman, the sum of $5,000 together 
with the sum of $75.90 costs and disbursements as taxed, amounting 
in all to $5,075.90.” 
Review by Appellate Court. When an issue of law has been finally 
determined by a trial court upon demurrer, or an issue of fact has been 
decided after trial by jury or by the court without a jury, the defeated 
party may usually have the proceedings of the trial court reviewed by 
a higher tribunal. A record of the proceedings must be made up and 
transmitted to the reviewing court according to the rules of local prac- 
tice. Everywhere this record must contain a correct statement of so 
much of what occurred at the trial as to show the alleged mistakes of 
the trial court, the defeated party’s objections and exceptions to them, 
and their bearing upon the issues which were tried, and it must be 
certified as correct by the trial court. The orthodox method of securing 
a review in a common law action is by writ of error; in equity by an 
appeal. Under modern codes the usual method is by a statutory ap- 
peal. In Student against Policeman, the latter’s remedy will be by writ 
of error or statutory appeal. His attorney will generally be required 
to take the following steps, though the order of procedure may vary 
in different jurisdictions: (1) Notify the court, usually through its 
clerk, and opposing counsel of his appeal to the higher tribunal. (2) 
Have made up a record — a bill of exceptions or settled case — which he 
proposes as an adequate and proper statement of so much of the pro- 
ceedings before the trial court as will be pertinent to the matters to 
be reviewed; this will be submitted to Lawyer, who will have opportunity 
