DIXON BROWN and J. A. GITTENS, Appellants, v. HABIBU KARNLEY and MOMOLU KAMARA for Themselves and Their People, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued October 26, 1959. Decided January 14, 1960. Where a judgment upon a jury verdict in an ejectment action was prematurely rendered, the cause may be remanded for new trial. On appeal from a judgment upon verdict of a jury in an action of ejectment, appellants’ motion to remand granted. R. F. D. Smallwood for appellants. Cooper for appellees. Momolu S. MR. Court. JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the At the call of this case the Court was informed that the appellees had filed a motion for the remand of the case, which motion was ordered read, and which reads as follows : “And now comes Momolu Songu Cooper, counsellor at law, of counsel for Habibu Karnley and Momolu Kamara, for themselves and their people, the abovenamed appellees and most respectfully moves to remand the above entitled cause, now pending on appeal before Your Honors, to the trial court with instructions that said court resume jurisdiction over said case and try the issues of fact therein joined de novo, for the following legal and factual reasons : “I. Because counsel submits that after a careful peru- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 455 sal of the records certified here from the court below, he finds that the empanelled jury rendered its verdict in favor of the appellees on January 16, 1957, during the December, 1956, term of the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, and that although the attorney for appellants excepted to said verdict, and gave notice that they would ‘take advantage of the relevant statutory law,’ the court nevertheless proceeded to render its final judgment against the appellants, then defendants, on January 18, 1957, just two days after verdict. Counsel is of the opinion that in this the trial Judge erred, and a new trial ought to be had. “Wherefore appellees pray this Court, in the name of fair play and justice, to remand this case to the court of origin with instruction to the judge thereof to resume jurisdiction and try de novo the issues of fact ruled to trial, in keeping with our law and practice. All which petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. All which petitioners are ready to prove.” Counsel for the appellants being present in court, and having been served a copy of the said motion, conceded the correctness of its contents, and hence did not offer any resistance. The controlling statute provides : “A motion for a new trial shall be served not later than four days after the verdict is entered if it is based on grounds set forth in section 8zo ( a) or (d) and not later than two days after the verdict is entered if it is based on the grounds set forth in section 820 (b) or (c). The motion shall be in writing and shall be filed with the clerk of the court. . . .” 1956 Code, tit. 6, � 8zi. Four days not having expired after the rendition of the verdict by the petty jury, the Judge was premature in rendering his judgment. This cause is therefore remanded to the court of origin, and the Judge thereof, 456 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS either resident or assigned, is ordered to resume jurisdiction and to try, de novo, the issues of fact which had been previously ruled to trial. And it is so ordered. Costs to abide final determination of the cause. Reversed and remanded.