Jordan v. Meredith
This text of 3 Yeates 318 (Jordan v. Meredith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The pretended usage of the plaisterers in the present instance is unreasonable and bad in itself. To charge an employer with materials never received is the height of injustice. But we have no proof that the jury have committed this error, and we are not justified in setting aside a ver°dict on mere conjecture. To warrant our interposition,- we must be clearly satisfied, that injustice has been done, or some plain mistake committed.
The defendant should have challenged the juror before he was sworn. He has slipped his time, by postponing his objection till this period. If he has been guilty of inattention, he alone should suffer for it. And so is the current of authorities in the books.
Motion for a new trial denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 Yeates 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-v-meredith-pa-1801.