Redman v. Gulnac
This text of 5 Cal. 148 (Redman v. Gulnac) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Bryan, J., concurred.
It was error, after the jury had retired, to allow them to come into Court and instruct them, in the absence of the parties or their counsels.
Such instructions will be considered important if the contrary is not shown, from the very fact that the jury have asked for them. The certificate of the Judge of the Court below is a sufficient authentication of the statement. An appellant cannot be defeated of his rights by any such proceeding. If the respondent did not think proper to file amendments, or the Judge to correct the statement, the certificate of that fact by the Judge is all that is necessary.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and new trial granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 Cal. 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redman-v-gulnac-cal-1855.