Johr v. People
| Decision Date | 17 January 1873 |
| Citation | 26 Mich. 427 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Henry Johr and others v. The People |
Heard January 14, 1873
Error to St. Clair circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Cyrus Miles and A. B. Maynard, for plaintiffs in error.
Dwight May, Attorney General, for the People.
Graves J.:
This case was before us at a former term, when a new trial was ordered. The trial following that decision occurred on the 27th of February, 1872, resulting in a verdict for defendant in error, and the case is again before us, upon bill of exceptions.
The only error claimed, is that the judge refused a new trial, prayed upon the ground, which he found to be true, that one of the jurors who gave the verdict, was an alien, and that the plaintiffs in error and their counsel were ignorant of the fact at the time of the trial. The real objection appears to be, that the verdict is shown to have been rendered by a jury one of whom was, without the knowledge of the plaintiffs in error and of their counsel, disqualified by alienage; and not merely that the court improperly refused a motion for a new trial, which in strictness in civil cases, is matter of discretion, and not reviewable on writ of error.
Considering the objection then as aimed at the validity of the verdict, and based on the assumption that one of the jurors was disqualified, we are to ascertain whether the record really discloses this fact. Unless it rightly appears in the bill of exceptions, it has no place in the record. On turning to the bill of exceptions, we find bound up in it the judge's decision on the motion for new trial, which includes a finding of the fact as to the juror. If this matter was entitled to be inserted in the bill, then it is part of the record, otherwise not.
The case, as already stated, was tried on the 27th of February, and the motion for a new trial was not made until the 5th of March, and not decided till the 5th of April, when, and not before, the judge found the facts thus pet in the bill of exceptions.
Now the office of a bill of exceptions, in a civil cause, is to bring upon the record the rulings and decisions of the trial court on legal questions during the course of the trial, and it cannot, in such cases, be made to embrace rulings upon new proceedings, taken after the trial is wholly complete and ended. Whenever a decision of that kind is complained of, the remedy must be sought in some other form.
In this case the motion was not made until several days after the verdict, and the finding relied upon, and inserted in the bill, was not made until more than a month after.
It seems to me to be going too far to say, that a party in a civil cause may omit, during the trial, a scrutiny into the qualifications of the jurors, and at the end of a month after the verdict, on a motion for a new trial, obtain a finding by the court of the fact of some disqualification, and then, through the medium of a bill of exceptions, introduce that fact upon the record for review on writ of error. In my judgment, the judge's finding on the motion in this case, is no proper part of the bill of exceptions, and hence, there is nothing to support the assignment of error, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
CONCUR BY: Cooley
CONCUR
Cooley J.:
This case appears to be brought to this court, in reliance upon Hill v. People, 16 Mich. 351, in which the decision of a motion for a new trial was reviewed on exceptions. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Driscoll
...alien, or someone who looks older than he really is, could conceivably slip past the parties and sit on the jury. See, e.g., Johr v. People, 26 Mich. 427 (1873) (fact that one juror was an alien not discovered until after judgment). A verdict given by such a jury would not be automatically ......
-
State v. Iron Cliffs County
... ... litigate and defeat them than it was to pay them. The ... uncertainty attending tax titles did not, however, discourage ... people from dealing in them. On the contrary, it is well ... known that certain persons made it their business to attend ... and bid at tax sales, and ... is one of these. Cuddy v. Mayor, 12 Mich. 368; ... Penn. Mining Co. v. Brady, 14 Mich. 260; Johr v ... People, 26 Mich. 427. A statute might unquestionably ... make the [54 Mich. 376] decision on such an application ... reviewable; but we ... ...
-
United States v. Trabing
...trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, even when based upon errors of law. Final v. Backus, 18 Mich. 218; Johr v. People, 26 Mich. 427; v. Waters, 26 Md. 53 at 53-73. In other states it is held that the ruling upon a motion for a new trial, when that motion is based ......
- People ex rel. Mixer v. Board of Supervisors of Manistee County