Definition
A new trial paper was a procedural document used in English court practice containing a scheduled list of causes — that is, pending matters — in which one of the following formal steps had been taken: a rule nisi had been obtained for a new trial; a rule nisi had been obtained for entering a verdict in place of a nonsuit; a rule had been obtained for entering judgment non obstante veredicto (notwithstanding the verdict); or some other application was pending to vary or set aside proceedings that had occurred at nisi prius. The paper functioned as a docket or call list for these post-trial motions, and the causes listed on it would be "called on" — that is, heard in turn — by the court.
The term is a product of the English common law court system and its distinctive procedural vocabulary. It has no direct modern American equivalent, having been rendered obsolete by the consolidation of courts and the adoption of uniform civil procedure rules.
---
Common Confusion
"New trial paper" should not be confused with a motion for new trial as that term is understood in modern American practice. A motion for new trial is a filing by a party requesting relief; the new trial paper was an administrative court document — essentially a docket — listing multiple pending matters across different cases. The distinction is between a party's pleading and a court's scheduling instrument. Researchers encountering "new trial paper" in historical English sources should resist reading it through the lens of modern motion practice.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is essentially extinct in active legal use but appears with some regularity in English procedural texts, reports of nisi prius proceedings, and treatises from the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Researchers working in that literature need to recognize it as a docketing mechanism, not a substantive pleading or party filing.
Several navigational points are worth flagging:
First, the term is tightly bound to nisi prius procedure. Understanding "new trial paper" requires familiarity with how the English common law courts organized the trial and post-trial stages — specifically the practice of obtaining rules nisi, which were conditional orders that would take effect unless cause was shown against them. A researcher unfamiliar with nisi prius practice may encounter this term without sufficient context to interpret what stage of proceedings it reflects.
Second, the list of matters that could appear on a new trial paper — new trial applications, nonsuit corrections, judgments non obstante veredicto — maps directly onto the cluster of post-verdict remedies that English courts made available before the parties' rights were finally settled. Tracking which type of matter appeared on the paper can help a researcher understand what procedural posture a reported case was in.
Third, American legal sources generally do not use this term. If it appears in an American treatise or digest, it is almost certainly a direct transplant from English practice — likely in a pre-Civil War procedural treatise drawing heavily on Blackstone, Tidd, or similar English authorities. That transplant context matters: the term signals that the author is writing in a heavily English-influenced procedural tradition, and other terminology in the same source may carry the same caveat.
Fourth, the phrase "called on" in Black's definition refers to the oral call of the docket — a practice in which a clerk or officer would call each matter listed on the paper in sequence for the court's attention. This oral call practice has essentially no modern parallel in American federal or state procedure, but it was central to how English courts managed their business, and understanding it helps researchers interpret contemporary accounts of court sessions.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary is the sole historical dictionary source for this entry, and its definition is brief but adequate for a term of this narrow procedural scope. Black's correctly identifies the new trial paper as a creature of English practice and accurately enumerates the categories of matters it contained: rules nisi for new trials, rules for entering verdicts in place of nonsuits, rules for judgment non obstante veredicto, and broader applications to vary or set aside nisi prius proceedings.
Black's cross-references Calvin and Adams's Roman Antiquities (Adams, Rom. Ant. 49) — the latter a curious citation given that the new trial paper is an English common law procedural instrument with no Roman law antecedent. The Adams citation likely refers to a procedural context lifted from a secondary source rather than a substantive Roman law parallel. Researchers should not read the Adams reference as implying classical origins for the practice.
No other major historical legal dictionaries in the Law Mind corpus provide independent entries for this term. Bouvier's Law Dictionary does not appear to carry a dedicated entry. The absence is consistent with the term's status as a narrow English procedural term that was not transplanted into American practice as a named concept.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The new trial paper was a feature of English common law court practice and did not take root as a named procedural instrument in American jurisdictions. American courts developed their own post-verdict motion practice under local rules and, eventually, uniform procedural codes. The term should be treated as jurisdiction-specific to historical English practice for all research purposes.
---