Jackson v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 31 December 1869 |
| Citation | 40 Ga. 150 |
| Parties | R. H. JACKSON, administrator, plaintiff in error. v. NANCY JACKSON, administratrix, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Competency of wife. Misconduct of juror. Uncertainty. Before Judge Bigby. Heard Superior Court. March Term, 1869.
On the 9th of February, 1863, A. H. Jackson gave to James Jackson his promissory note for $5,216 32-100, due at one day after date. They died. Nancy Jackson administered *upon James Jackson's estate, she being his widow, and R. H. Jackson administered upon the estateof A. H. Jackson. She, as administratrix, sued R. H. Jackson, as administrator, on said note. The defence was an effort to scale it under the ordinance of 1865, and to reduce it under the Relief Act of 1868.
The trial began in the evening. Plaintiff's counsel read in evidence the note. On it were credits as follows: There was also on it, in pencil mark, writing as follows: with the additions of the figures "186, " followed by another figure, which plaintiff's counsel thought was a 3, but which defendant's counsel contended was a 4 or a 5. Plaintiff's counsel introduced evidence tending to show that this note was in renewal of an ante bellum note given for land.
Court adjourned till next morning. When the jury reassembled, one of them was drunk. The Court called the attention of counsel upon both sides to this, and inquired what they would do. Judge Featherston, one of defendant's counsel, said he was willing to let him remain on the jury, and plaintiff's counsel consented. The juror was then so drunk that it was plain that he was incompetent. The Court then fined the juror $15 00. Judge Bigham, also counsel for defendant, asked the Court to put his order in the shape of a rule nisi and let the juror show cause next morning, as he might get into a condition by that time to explain his conduct.
Upon said consent of counsel, the Court ordered the cause to proceed with the drunken man on the jury. During the adjournment for dinner said juror again drank liquor, and conversed with persons, and said that he "was against defendant, because he was a war man." Defendant testified to *facts tending to show that plaintiff agreed that said notes should be scaled, and that said payment to her was to have been accepted as a full payment of the note. Plaintiff, on her own behalf, testified, denying such an understanding and stating facts learned by her while attending to her husband's business for him in his lifetime, touching the consideration, etc. This was allowed, though she was objected to upon the ground that she was incompetent. Other testimony was introduced pro and con as to the value of the land, the facts and circumstances of the trade, the loss of property by defendant, etc. The case was argued, the jury was charged, and retired about sundown to make up their verdict. Before the jury began considering the cause, said juror, without the consent of the bailiff in charge of the jury, but against his remonstrance, went to a grocery, tookanother drink, and then returned to the jury-room. His only misconduct in the room appears to be, that he tried to get out to get more liquor. One of the jurors swore that he thought that the drunken man understood the cause as well, if not better, in the jury-room than when on the trial. The verdict returned was "in favor of plaintiff for principal, interest and costs, " and without any explanation of it, judgment was entered up for $3,077 58, principal, $623 93, for interest, up to 19th of March, 1869, and costs of suit.
Defendant's counsel moved for a new trial upon the grounds that Nancy Jackson should not have been allowed to testify, because of the uncertainty of the verdict, and because of the misconduct of said juror, and they showed the said misconduct, and that all of it which occurred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State, A93A1833
...410, 416 (1879) (any knowledge acquired by the wife based on the trust confided in her by her husband should be excluded); Jackson v. Jackson, 40 Ga. 150 (1869) (a wife is not allowed to testify as to any fact which came to her knowledge by reason of the confidential relation of husband and......
-
Oglethorpe Sav. & Trust Co v. Morgan
... ... See Loudon v. Blandford, 56 Ga. 150 (6). In the sixth division of the opinion in that case Judge Jackson, speaking for the court, said: "If mechanics held a lien on the property sold, duly recorded within 3 months, and brought suit thereon in 12 ... ...
-
Georgia Intern. Life Ins. Co. v. Boney
...nor a communication. This subject has infrequently arisen in the reported cases in Georgia. In the early case of Jackson v. Jackson, 40 Ga. 150, 153 (1869), it was held that while Mrs. Jackson was a competent witness to testify concerning a promissory note upon which the suit was based, she......
-
Sellers v. Mann
...triviality. It would depend largely upon the vastness of the amount involved what sum would be considered trivial. In the case of Jackson v. Jackson, 40 Ga. 150, is to be found the following headnote: "When there were three credits on the note sued on, one of which was uncertain and doubtfu......