Edlund v. St. Paul City Railway Company
| Decision Date | 29 December 1899 |
| Docket Number | 11,843 - (153) |
| Citation | 81 N.W. 214,78 Minn. 434 |
| Parties | ELSIE EDLUND v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Original Opinion Filed December 20, 1899
Misconduct of Juror -- Silence of Record -- Affidavit of Counsel.
The rule that what occurs at the trial of an action, as a part thereof, must be made to appear in a settled case or a bill of exceptions, applied in a case where, upon a motion for a new trial, on the ground, among others, of the misconduct of a juror, an attempt was made to show by the affidavit of counsel that each and all of the jurors were questioned, when called, as to their knowledge of the facts in such case, and that each and every one denied having any knowledge whatsoever of the facts.
Complaints of Pain to Physician.
The rule laid down in Williams v. Great Northern Ry Co., 68 Minn. 55, as to the admission of testimony of a physician of the statements and complaint of present, existing pain and suffering, made by a patient at the time he is in attendance as such physician, followed.
Negligence -- Charge to Jury.
Held, that upon the evidence as to defendant's negligence, either in the construction of a temporary track, or in the management of a car thereon, the court did not err when it refused to charge as requested by defendant.
On December 29, 1899, the following opinion was filed:
Petition on Rehearing
A reargument is asked for, on the ground that this court erred in holding that the fact, if it was the fact, that when the jury was impaneled the defendant's counsel, after stating to them the names of the parties and the alleged facts constituting plaintiff's cause of action, inquired of all if any of them knew anything about the facts of the accident, to which all, including Soucheray, answered that they did not, could not be shown by affidavits, but, being a part of the proceedings on the trial, could only be made to appear as part of a settled case or bill of exceptions. Withdrawing what was said on that point, and leaving it undecided, we are still of opinion that the motion for a new trial was properly denied.
All that appeared was that Soucheray was on the Interurban car which collided with the car on which plaintiff was a passenger, and was sitting with his wife in a seat about midway of the car, which was packed with passengers, and did not see or hear anything in connection with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial