Norvell v. Deval
| Decision Date | 31 July 1872 |
| Citation | 50 Mo. 272 |
| Parties | JAMES W. NORVELL, Respondent, v. WM. C. DEVAL, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court.
R. P. Bland and A. J. Seay, for appellant.
Ewing & Smith, with Pomeroy, for respondent.
This was an action for assault and battery, commenced in Crawford county, and taken to Phelps county by change of venue because the judge had been of counsel in the case. The plaintiff was an infant when the suit was commenced, and a next friend was appointed for him without a regular petition. But during the pendency of the suit be became of age, and on motion was allowed to prosecute his suit as an adult, and, as such, filed an amended petition to which the defendant filed an answer, justifying the assault and battery on the ground of self-defense.
The case was submitted to a jury on the 9th of April, 1870, on which day the court made an order of record that if the jury did not agree, the sheriff should keep them in custody, and on the 11th of April, 1870, convey them to Waynesville, Pulaski county. The court adjourned on the 9th of April till the 24th of May, 1870, and the jury found a sealed verdict which was signed by all the jurors, and retained till the court met, on the 24th of May. In the meantime one of the jurors became insane and had been sent to the lunatic asylum, and only eleven jurors appeared in court when the sealed verdict was opened and delivered to the court. The verdict was for five dollars damages in favor of plaintiff. The defendant asked that the jury might be polled, but the court refused permission to poll the jury because one of them was absent and insane, and the defendant excepted. The defendant filed motions for new trial and in arrest, which were overruled and final judgment rendered against him, from which he has appealed to this court.
The only material question in this case is as to the validity of the verdict. The court had no right to have the jury carried from one county to another. This has never been the practice in this State, and ought not to be allowed. The entry of the order for removal amounted to nothing, as it was not carried out.
It seems to me that a court has no authority to leave a jury in session after the adjournment of a term to a distant day. As long as a judge remains as the head of the court he may keep the jury in session. But when the court adjourns over, and he is no longer head of the court, how is a jury to be kept...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Chicago, Burlington & Q. R. Co.
... ... jury, denying a request to have them polled, it was held to ... be error and that a venire de novo should be ... granted. ( Norvell v. Deval, 50 Mo. 272, 11 Am. Rep ... 413; see also Bowman v. Wheaton, 2 Kan.App. 581, 44 ... P. 750; Thornburgh v. Cole, 27 Kan. 490.) And ... ...
-
Keyes v. C.B. & Q. Railroad Co.
...recorded, the judgment should have been entered for the defendant. The poll was conclusive. Cattell v. Publishing Co., 88 Mo. 356; Norvell v. Deval, 50 Mo. 272; Rankin v. Harper, 23 Mo. 579; Roman v. King, 268 S.W. 414; Poulson v. Collier, 18 Mo. App. 583; 2 Thomp. Trials (2 Ed.) 1917; 27 R......
-
Keyes v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
... ... defendant. The poll was conclusive. Cattell v. Publishing ... Co., 88 Mo. 356; Norvell v. Deval, 50 Mo. 272; ... Rankin v. Harper, 23 Mo. 579; Roman v ... King, 268 S.W. 414; Poulson v. Collier, 18 ... Mo.App. 583; 2 Thomp ... ...
-
Trower v. M.-K.-T. Railroad Co.
...St. Louis, Keokuk & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Withrow, 133 Mo. 500; Dennis v. State, 50 So. 499; 1 Thompson on Trials (2d Ed.), sec. 90; Norvell v. Deval, 50 Mo. 272. (2) Said procedure was prejudicial to defendant because it denied defendant the right to select a jury from a panel of eighteen qualif......