Gambo v. F.M. Dugas & Son
| Decision Date | 16 August 1916 |
| Docket Number | 581. |
| Citation | 89 S.E. 679,145 Ga. 614 |
| Parties | GAMBO v. F. M. DUGAS & SON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Even if there was any evidence which would authorize a charge on the subject of the statute of frauds had that statute been set up by plea, no such defense was pleaded, and there was no error in failing to charge on the subject of the statute of frauds because of a parol request to do so.
After the jury had been out in their room considering the case for two hours, there was no error in calling them back into the courtroom and inquiring if they had agreed upon a verdict.
In a civil case in which the amount involved was $129.50, and there were only one or two issues, and the evidence was not complicated, after the jury "had deliberated for a while on the case," and after the court had inquired of them whether they had agreed on a verdict, and had been informed that they had not done so, and after the foreman had informed the court that there seemed to be quite a serious disagreement, and that he had inquired if the jury wished to be again charged on any point, but had received "nothing definite," and presumed that it was "an element of fact rather than of law," the court said to the jury Held, that this charge pressed the urging of the jury to agree upon a verdict to the utmost line permissible and to the very verge of error. It is much better for trial judges to be conservative in such matters, rather than to bring their instructions so close to the line of undue pressure, with the danger that in a close or doubtful case or one where there is any other error, it might require a retrial of the case. But under the facts of this case, and under former rulings of this court, the charge above stated will not necessitate a reversal. White v. Fulton, 68 Ga. 511(3); Parker v. Georgia Pacific Ry. Co., 83 Ga. 539, 10 S.E. 233; Austin v. Appling, 88 Ga. 54 13 S.E. 955; Metropolitan Street R. Co. v. Johnson, 90 Ga. 500(9), 501, 16 S.E. 49...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riggins v. State, 25756
...dissenting. I dissent from the ruling made in Division 3 of the majority opinion and from the judgment of reversal. In Gambo v. F. M. Dugas & Son, 145 Ga. 614, 89 S.E. 679, after the jury had the case under consideration, the court in its re-charge to the jury stated: 'It is your duty to ag......
-
Southern Ry. Co v. Taylor
...attention to another criminal case, Yancy v. State, 173 Ga. 685 (5), 160 S.E. 867. Also, see in this connection Gambo v. F. M. Dugas & Son, 145 Ga. 614, 615 (3), 89 S.E. 679, in which the trial court had the jury return and used to them language which we think much more harmful than the lan......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor
... ... Yancy v. State, 173 Ga. 685(5), 160 S.E. 867. Also, ... see in this connection Gambo v. F. M. Dugas & Son, 145 ... Ga. 614, 615(3), 89 S.E. 679, in which the trial court had ... the ... ...
-
Smith v. State
...case is not reversible error. Yancy v. State, 173 Ga. 685, 160 S.E. 867; Golatt v. State, 130 Ga. 18, 60 S.E. 107; Gambo v. F. M. Dugas & Son, 145 Ga. 614, 89 S.E. 679; Jones v. State, 117 Ga. 710, 713, 44 S.E. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial for any rea......