Krauss v. Cope

61 N.E. 220, 180 Mass. 22, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 711
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 18, 1901·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Barker, J.

The general rule is that all papers which are duly admitted in evidence should go to the jury; but it is in the discretion of the judge to give or withhold them, and his decision upon the question is not a subject of exception. Whithead v. Keyes, 3 Allen, 495. Burghardt v. Van Deusen, 4 Allen, 374. Farnum v. Pitcher, 151 Mass. 470, 476. While auditors’ reports are made evidence by statute, and while it is the usual [23] practice to allow them to go to the jury room, the statute prescribes no rule as to whether they shall be taken to the jury room, and if in the discretion of the presiding judge, an audit- or’s report is not allowed to be taken by the jury when they retire to consider of their verdict, no exception lies to the refusal.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Krauss v. Cope, 61 N.E. 220, 180 Mass. 22, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 711 (Mass. 1901).

61 N.E. 220 (Krauss v. Cope) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Cross
605 N.E.2d 298 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1992)
Turturro v. Calder
29 N.E.2d 744 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Barber, Admr. v. Stratton
10 A.2d 211 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1940)
State v. Lord
1938 NMSC 059 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1938)
State v. Sutkus
182 A. 15 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1935)
Annawan Mills, Inc. v. Mangene
130 N.E. 77 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Phillips v. Chase
87 N.E. 755 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Paquette v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
79 N.E. 250 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)