General
Benson and Ferguson against Clark and Clark
1 Cow. 258·New York Supreme Court·1823·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Benson and Ferguson against Clark and Clark.
It is error for the justice to hold, any intercourse with the jury at their room, without the consent of the parties:
As going into the room and hearing certain questions asked him, though he do not answer them:
not state what si was. Or sending a paper to the jury, though
On certiorari to a Justice’s Court. One of the errors relied upon was, that in the Court below, after the jury had retired, the Justice, at their request, went into the room with them, without the consent of the parties ; that the jurors put certain questions to him, which he did not answer, but retired. Soon after, the jurors sent the Constable for a certain paper, which the Justice sent to them. But his retura did not state what paper it was.
J. C. Morris, for the plaintiff in error.
S. Starkweather, contra.
[MAJORITY — Curia.]
Curia.
Both these acts were irregular. The Justice had no right to have any intercourse with the jury, without consent of the parties; and though he states, that he did not answer their questions, the practice may lead to great abuse, if tolerated. The observations of the Court in Taylor v. Betsford, (13 John. 487) are strictly applicable. It is unnecessary, therefore, to consider the other errors assigned.
Judgment reversed...