Conner v. Flaska Et Ux

252 P. 1001, 32 N.M. 162

• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court
• Decided: January 7, 1927
• Docket: No. 3026.
• Status: Published

Opinion

OPINON OP THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff below, sued to recover $75, a balance for professional services rendered. The jury found against him, and judgment followed. He complains here that, over his objection and exception, the court refused to allow his counsel to address the jury. This seems to ha.ve been the denial of a right which a party litigant enjoys under Gode 1915, §4467, which reads:

“Every plaintiff or defendant shall be entitled to be heard before the jury by an attorney, and if there be but one plaintiff or defendant, by two, and when there are several defendants having- the same or separate defenses and appearing- by the same or different attorneys, the court» shall, before argument, arrange their order.”

See Territory v. Sherron, 11 N. M. 515, 70 P. 562.

Because of this error, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial; and it is so ordered.

PARKER, C. J., and B10KLET and WATSON, JJ., concur.