Minnesota Supreme Court, 1876

Knowles v. Van Gorder

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 26, 1876 · Berry

23 Minn. 197; 1876 Minn. LEXIS 117 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

JLloyd Barber, for appellant., Thomas Wilson and W. H. Yale, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1971, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Stroncek v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company (Minn. 1971)
Riley v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. (Minn. 1898)
Olson v. Gjertsen (Minn. 1890)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Berry, J.

An application to set aside a verdict and for a new trial, upon the ground that the jury have been improp*198erly and unfairly influenced by counsel, is largely addressed' to the sound discretion of the trial court. That court has far greater advantages than an appellate court can possibly have for observing the character' and effect of the influence complained of. In view of these considerations, and upon looking at the facts appearing in the case, and the grounds assigned by the court below for its action in the premises, we find no reason for doubting that the discretion appealed to in the present instance was properly exercised.

The fact that the improper conduct complained of was not objected to by plaintiff’s counsel becomes unimportant, when it is considered that it was objected to by the court of its own motion. This answered every purpose of an objection taken by counsel and sustained by the court. If, after-being admonished by the court, defendant’s counsel persisted (as he in effect did) in the impropriety to which his attention was called, it was not necessary for plaintiff, in order to save his rights, to make a further objection.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.