Jones v. Parker
| Decision Date | 16 May 1887 |
| Citation | 2 S.E. 370,97 N.C. 33 |
| Parties | JONES and Wife v. PARKER. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Gates county.
Denying a motion for a new trial, based upon affidavits of some of the jurors that they did not concur in the verdict, and by others that they did not understand portions of the charge of the court, and where there is no error assigned in the record, is a matter purely within the discretion of the presiding judge, and will not be considered.
John Gatling, for plaintiff.
No appearance for defendant.
This was a civil action tried before SHIPP, J., at fall term, 1886, of Gates superior court. There is no error assigned in the record, but a motion was made for a new trial based upon affidavits filed by some of the jurors that they did not concur in the verdict; and by others that they did not understand portions of the charge of the court. Counter-affidavits by other members of the jury were also filed.
The case states that "the court considering the affidavits fully, and acting upon personal knowledge of what transpired in court, in the exercise of discretion, refused the motion." The granting of a new trial when a matter of discretion, as in this case, is purely a subject for the consideration of the presiding judge, and this court has no power to review or control the exercise of his discretion. This is too well settled to need the citation of authority. His honor gave full consideration to the affidavits of the jurors in regard to their verdict.
In State v. McLeod, 1 Hawks, 346, HENDERSON, J., said: "It has been long settled, and very properly, that evidence impeaching their verdict must not come from the jury, but must be shown by other testimony." And this has been affirmed in State v. Smallwood, 78 N.C. 563. We call attention to these authorities because we think it unsafe and unwise, as a rule, to permit verdicts to be impeached by the testimony of jurors rendering them.
In this case, no error having been assigned in the record and none appearing, the judgment must be affirmed. Let this be certified.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodman v. Goodman
...55 S.E. 338; Abernethy v. Yount, 138 N.C. 337, 50 S.E. 696; Benton v. Collins, 125 N.C. 83, 34 S.E. 242, 47 L. R. A. 33; Jones v. Parker, 97 N.C. 33, 2 S.E. 370; Braid v. Lukins, 95 N.C. 123; Carson Dellinger, 90 N.C. 226; Moore v. Edmiston, 70 N.C. 471). Expressions may be found in a numbe......
-
Abernethy v. Yount
...it lay in the sound discretion of the judge who presided at the trial to grant a new trial." It was refused in that case. In Jones v. Parker, 97 N.C. 33, 2 S.E. 370, the motion was refused; the judge stating his reasons therefor. In State v. Boggan, 133 N.C. 761, 46 S.E. 111, the facts were......
-
Cummings v. Ortega
...in Vaise v. Delaval, (1785) 99 Eng. Rep. 944 (K.B.), is intended to promote and protect the jury system. See Jones v. Parker, 97 N.C. 33, 34, 2 S.E. 370, 370 (1887) (characterizing the use of juror testimony to impeach a jury's verdict as “unsafe and unwise”). We have noted that without thi......
-
Purcell v. Southern Ry. Co.
...be heard to impeach his own verdict by showing how the damage was assessed. Johnson v. Allen, 100 N.C. 137, 5 S.E. 666; Jones v. Parker, 97 N.C. 33, 2 S.E. 370; State v. Royal, 90 N.C. 755. There was, therefore, no error in refusing to grant a new trial upon the affidavit setting forth info......