Rose v. Harvey

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Rose v. Harvey

30 A. 459, 18 R.I. 527, 1894 R.I. LEXIS 63

DecidedMarch 1, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A. 459 (Rose v. Harvey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rose v. Harvey, 30 A. 459, 18 R.I. 527, 1894 R.I. LEXIS 63 (R.I. 1894).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The court sees no occasion to pass upon the question whether mandamus may properly issue as prayed.

It appears from the affidavits filed that on the return of the jury into court, the foreman was asked by the clerk if they had agreed on a verdict; that thereupon a paper from the foreman was handed to the clerk which read as follows: “We, the juiy, agree that the defendant alienated the affections of the plaintiff’s wife from him, and we assess the damages at $1,000.” This paper, however, was not read to the jury by the clerk, nor were they asked whether it Was their verdict, nor was it signed by the jury or by the foreman. It. does not appear, therefore, that it was assented to by the juiy as its finding, and the jury having been subsequently discharged from further consideration of the case, there is no way npw by which the assent of the jury can be obtained; and, therefore, it cannot be entered on the record as their verdict. The trial, having thus resulted, must be regarded as a mistrial, and, consequently, the case must stand for another trial.

Petition denied and dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The court sees no occasion to pass upon the question whether mandamus may properly issue as prayed.

It appears from the affidavits filed that on the return of the jury into court, the foreman was asked by the clerk if they had agreed on a verdict; that thereupon a paper from the foreman was handed to the clerk which read as follows: “We, the juiy, agree that the defendant alienated the affections of the plaintiff’s wife from him, and we assess the damages at $1,000.” This paper, however, was not read to the jury by the clerk, nor were they asked whether it Was their verdict, nor was it signed by the jury or by the foreman. It. does not appear, therefore, that it was assented to by the juiy as its finding, and the jury having been subsequently discharged from further consideration of the case, there is no way npw by which the assent of the jury can be obtained; and, therefore, it cannot be entered on the record as their verdict. The trial, having thus resulted, must be regarded as a mistrial, and, consequently, the case must stand for another trial.

Petition denied and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A. 459, 18 R.I. 527, 1894 R.I. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-harvey-ri-1894.