Opinion
[Syllabus Material] Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District.
COUNSEL
1. The Court erred in directing the jury to find a special verdict, as above set forth.
2. No verdict was rendered upon the issues presented upon the pleadings.
3. The Court erred in refusing a new trial.
Botts and Emmett, for Appellant.
Clarke, for Respondents.
The form of the verdict was assented to at the time the case was put to the jury, and plaintiff stated if the hops were merchantable when they left New York, he had no claim. He took no exception to the ruling of the Court in submitting the case to the jury.
The verdict determines that the hops were " first sort," a prime article, and worth the highest price. The form of the verdict below being assented to by plaintiff, is not erroneous. The basis of the action was the inferior quality of the hops. The jury found they were not inferior, and this finding of the jury warrants the judgment.
JUDGES: Per Heydenfeldt, Justice. Wells, Justice, concurring.
OPINION
HEYDENFELDT, Judge
The errors assigned in this case are:
1st. In directing the jury to find a special verdict.
2d. That no verdict was rendered upon the issue presented by the pleadings.
3d. The refusal to grant a new trial
These points are not well taken.
The Practice Act confers express authority upon the Courts below to direct a special verdict, and in many cases the practice is a beneficial one, simplifying the issues, and bringing the true questions in dispute directly to the mind and comprehension of the jury. In this case the jury found the only issues involved in the controversy, and the plaintiff appears to be concluded by his declaration on the trial, " that if the hops were merchantable when they left New York, he made no claim."
The application for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, does not state sufficient facts to warrant a new trial, and is fully controverted by the counterstatement of Byckman.
Judgment affirmed.