Johnson v. Oakes

Supreme Court of Georgia

Johnson v. Oakes

6 S.E. 274, 80 Ga. 722

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 7, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 S.E. 274 (Johnson v. Oakes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Oakes, 6 S.E. 274, 80 Ga. 722 (Ga. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

The verdict as written out and returned, through a misconception of the meaning of the words plaintiff” and “ defendant,” represented the intention of one juror, but misrepresented the intention of eleven of the jurors. The question was between a mistrial and sending the j ury back to reconsider the verdict. Perhaps a mistrial would have been the better result. But the court, in the exercise of its discretion, preferred to remand the jury, and we cannot hold that this was an usurpation of power. There is no suggestion that the jury had been tampered with. The difference between finding .for the plaintiff and for the defendant is certainly very broad, but if there was really a mistake, as there seems to have been, the court was right in allowing the verdict to be reconsidered, the jury not having been discharged from the consideration of the case. The verdict was still in fieri.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

The verdict as written out and returned, through a misconception of the meaning of the words plaintiff” and “ defendant,” represented the intention of one juror, but misrepresented the intention of eleven of the jurors. The question was between a mistrial and sending the j ury back to reconsider the verdict. Perhaps a mistrial would have been the better result. But the court, in the exercise of its discretion, preferred to remand the jury, and we cannot hold that this was an usurpation of power. There is no suggestion that the jury had been tampered with. The difference between finding .for the plaintiff and for the defendant is certainly very broad, but if there was really a mistake, as there seems to have been, the court was right in allowing the verdict to be reconsidered, the jury not having been discharged from the consideration of the case. The verdict was still in fieri.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 S.E. 274, 80 Ga. 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-oakes-ga-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack