Benson v. Clark
1 Cow. 258
Opinion
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...
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Benson v. Clark, 1 Cow. 258 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1823).
1 Cow. 258 (Benson v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Litzenberger v. Litzenberger
99 Misc. 572 (New York Supreme Court, 1917)
Welker v. Allen
39 Misc. 523 (New York County Courts, 1902)
Commonwealth v. House
6 Pa. Super. 92 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)
Lester v. Hays
38 S.W. 52 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1896)
Danes v. Pearson
33 N.E. 976 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
Gibbons v. Van Alstyne
9 N.Y.S. 156 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Valentine v. Kelly
7 N.Y.S. 184 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
Wiggins v. Downer
67 How. Pr. 65 (New York Supreme Court, 1884)