Shamokin Coal Co. v. Mitman
Decision Date | 26 July 1846 |
Parties | SHAMOKIN Coal and Iron Co. <I>v.</I> MITMAN. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Hegins, for plaintiff in error.—The court had no right to take the verdict during the adjournment. Tom. Law Dic. tit. Adjournment, 37; Morris v. Buckley, 8 Serg. & Rawle, 216, 217. No verdict is known to law but a public one. Ruth v. Sherwood, 6 Johns. 68. The party had the right to poll the jury, before verdict received, (Fox v. Smith, 3 Cow. 22,) which is lost by this extraordinary proceeding.
Miller, contrà.—The irregularity complained of is not the subject of a writ of error. The question involved in the cause, on the trial, was one of fact. No bill of exception was taken by either party, nor was the charge of the court excepted to. Polling the jury is a matter of discretion, not of right. Blackley v. Sheldon, 7 Johns. 32. The court may, if they please, permit the jury to be polled, after verdict received. United States v. Gillis, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 159.
July 26. BURNSIDE, J.
The Court of Common Pleas placed on their record, (at the request of the defendant's counsel, and against the wishes of the plaintiff's counsel,) returned to this court, that The defendant's counsel moved for a new trial for this irregularity, which was refused. "The special error assigned in this court is, that the court erred in receiving and entering upon the record the verdict of the jury in the interval between the adjournment of the court and the meeting of the court in the afternoon, as stated and entered upon the record." An adjournment is a putting off until another time or place. The object of the adjournment of courts, is to give leave to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reed v. Kinnik
...Company, 225 Pa. 410, 74 A. 341, where the jury poll question was again raised but not decided. In the early case of Shamokin Coal & Iron Co. v. Mitman, 3 Pa. 379, which has never been cited in a reported case, a verdict was delivered by the jury in the absence of defendant and his counsel.......
- Mott v. Clark