Jander v. Joule

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas

Jander v. Joule

25 Pa. D. & C. 685, 1935 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 77

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County

DecidedJanuary 5, 1935

Docketno. 1197

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Pa. D. & C. 685 (Jander v. Joule) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jander v. Joule, 25 Pa. D. & C. 685, 1935 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 77 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Fronefield, P. J.,

The plaintiff moved for a new trial in this suit on a promissory note, after a verdict for the defendant. The reasons assigned are that the note, with a check for the same sum, which was given by the plaintiff to the defendant about two years before the date of the note, and a letter written by defendant to the plaintiff, all of which were read to the jury, were not permitted to go out with the jury. The only defense to the note was a want of consideration. The defendant explained that the plaintiff asked defendant to purchase some stock for him which turned out to be a bad venture and, as they had been friends, the defendant gave plaintiff his note for the amount, though he was under no obligation to do it. The plaintiff did not appear at the trial to deny the defendant’s testimony. The jury did not ask for the papers and no harm could have come to the plaintiff’s case because of their absence. The real harm was caused by the plaintiff not being present at the trial to answer the testimony of the defendant, that the note was given without any consideration.

Sending out papers with the jury is usually within the sound discretion of the court: Little Schuylkill, etc., Co. v. Richards’ Admr., 57 Pa. 142; Cavanaugh v. Buehler et al., 120 Pa. 441; and where they are sent out or are refused to be sent out, it must be shown that harm was done the case by sending or refusal to send them out, before the appellate court will reverse: Henry on Trial Evidence in Pa. (2d ed.), sec. 427; The Riddlesburg Iron & Coal Co. v. Rogers, 65 Pa. 416; Spence v. Spence, 4 Watts 165; Shirk v. Davis Garbage Furnace Co., 24 Lane. 355.

The motion for a new trial is dismissed.

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

Fronefield, P. J.,

The plaintiff moved for a new trial in this suit on a promissory note, after a verdict for the defendant. The reasons assigned are that the note, with a check for the same sum, which was given by the plaintiff to the defendant about two years before the date of the note, and a letter written by defendant to the plaintiff, all of which were read to the jury, were not permitted to go out with the jury. The only defense to the note was a want of consideration. The defendant explained that the plaintiff asked defendant to purchase some stock for him which turned out to be a bad venture and, as they had been friends, the defendant gave plaintiff his note for the amount, though he was under no obligation to do it. The plaintiff did not appear at the trial to deny the defendant’s testimony. The jury did not ask for the papers and no harm could have come to the plaintiff’s case because of their absence. The real harm was caused by the plaintiff not being present at the trial to answer the testimony of the defendant, that the note was given without any consideration.

Sending out papers with the jury is usually within the sound discretion of the court: Little Schuylkill, etc., Co. v. Richards’ Admr., 57 Pa. 142; Cavanaugh v. Buehler et al., 120 Pa. 441; and where they are sent out or are refused to be sent out, it must be shown that harm was done the case by sending or refusal to send them out, before the appellate court will reverse: Henry on Trial Evidence in Pa. (2d ed.), sec. 427; The Riddlesburg Iron & Coal Co. v. Rogers, 65 Pa. 416; Spence v. Spence, 4 Watts 165; Shirk v. Davis Garbage Furnace Co., 24 Lane. 355.

The motion for a new trial is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Pa. D. & C. 685, 1935 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jander-v-joule-pactcompldelawa-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack