Hyslop v. Crozier

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Hyslop v. Crozier

1 Miles 267

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County·Decided June 7, 1836·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A party cannot be permitted to state to the jury the result of a previous award in his favour. He cannot read such [268]*268award to the jury in order to influence their minds. Shaeffer v. Kreitzer, 6 Binn. 480. And the stating the fact by the counsel, which has the same tendency, is too important an irregularity to be overlooked.

There must be strong special circumstances to induce the court, in cases of this kind, to refrain from granting a new trial.

Rule absolute.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

A party cannot be permitted to state to the jury the result of a previous award in his favour. He cannot read such [268]*268award to the jury in order to influence their minds. Shaeffer v. Kreitzer, 6 Binn. 480. And the stating the fact by the counsel, which has the same tendency, is too important an irregularity to be overlooked.

There must be strong special circumstances to induce the court, in cases of this kind, to refrain from granting a new trial.

Rule absolute.

Hyslop v. Crozier, 1 Miles 267 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1836).

Pincite

1 Miles 267 (Hyslop v. Crozier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related