Morehead v. Brown
Opinion of the Court
I think the judgment of the justice’s court was right upon the merits, and that the errors complained of did not prejudice the defendant. Code Civil Proe. § 3063. The verdict was in writing, and accords with the illiteracy which is often an accepted test of the impartiality of jurors. The practice of requiring a verdict in writing is not prescribed by law, and, if technical inaccuracy is to be made a pretext for setting it aside, cannot be too vigorously condemned. I advise a reversal of the judgment of the county court.
Mayham, J., concurs.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting.) This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court reversing a judgment recovered by plaintiffs before a justice of the peace for $100 and costs. The action was brought to recover penalties amounting to $200 for four alleged violations of section 14, c. 628, Laws 1857, (excise law.) The alleged violations were the selling of hard cider without a license. The action is penal, and the defendant is entitled to have the matter tried in a due and legal manner. The evidence given, against defendant’s objection, by the witness Tanner, that his brother-in-law and Ehnendorf fought together when they got back in the woods, was plainly improper. It was not shown that they fought because they were intoxicated, and it was no evidence of the intoxicating quality of the eider. The evidence that other complaints had been made about defendant was improper. The jury brought in a written verdict: “We finde the defende $100 dollars.” Plaintiffs’ counsel, requested that the jury retire and make their verdict more explicit. They attempted to state their verdict, and said: “We find the defendant of two offenses, and supposed when we expressed the amount the court would know we meant two offenses.” Defendant’s counsel requested that the written verdict be entered, and the jury discharged. The court directed the jury to retire and correct their verdict. They did so, and brought in: “We finde the defende of two offenses, fifty dollars each.” I think that this was not such a verdict as justified the rendition of a judgment of $100 thereon in favor of the
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.