State ex rel. Volkman v. Waltermath

Wisconsin Supreme Court

State ex rel. Volkman v. Waltermath

156 N.W. 946, 162 Wis. 602, 1916 Wisc. LEXIS 193

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 14, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 156 N.W. 946 (State ex rel. Volkman v. Waltermath) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Volkman v. Waltermath, 156 N.W. 946, 162 Wis. 602, 1916 Wisc. LEXIS 193 (Wis. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, O. J.

In this case it is held:

1. A bastardy action is not a criminal prosecution, but a statutory proceeding to enforce a civil obligation or duty, the procedure being, however, criminal in form. Baker v. State, 65 Wis. 50, 26 N. W. 167; Barry v. Niessen, 114 Wis. 256, 90 N. W. 166; Smith v. State, 146 Wis. 111, 130 N. W. 894.

2. While in a criminal prosecution a sealed verdict cannot be amended or changed after the Jury have separated (Koch v. State, 126 Wis. 470, 106 N. W. 531), the better rule and the weight of authority is to the effect that, in an action to enforce civil liability, if the sealed verdict is defective or if the jury on polling refuse to affirm it, they may be sent out again for further deliberation, and that a fuller or different verdict afterward returned will be good. Comm. v. Tobin, 125 Mass. 203; Root v. Sherwood, 6 Johns. 68; Steele v. Etheridge, 15 Minn. 501; Rigg v. Bias, 44 Kan. 148, 24 Pac. 56; Proffatt, Jury Trial, § 460; 38 Cyc. 1874.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and action remanded for a new trial and further proceedings according to law.

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

Winslow, O. J.

In this case it is held:

1. A bastardy action is not a criminal prosecution, but a statutory proceeding to enforce a civil obligation or duty, the procedure being, however, criminal in form. Baker v. State, 65 Wis. 50, 26 N. W. 167; Barry v. Niessen, 114 Wis. 256, 90 N. W. 166; Smith v. State, 146 Wis. 111, 130 N. W. 894.

2. While in a criminal prosecution a sealed verdict cannot be amended or changed after the Jury have separated (Koch v. State, 126 Wis. 470, 106 N. W. 531), the better rule and the weight of authority is to the effect that, in an action to enforce civil liability, if the sealed verdict is defective or if the jury on polling refuse to affirm it, they may be sent out again for further deliberation, and that a fuller or different verdict afterward returned will be good. Comm. v. Tobin, 125 Mass. 203; Root v. Sherwood, 6 Johns. 68; Steele v. Etheridge, 15 Minn. 501; Rigg v. Bias, 44 Kan. 148, 24 Pac. 56; Proffatt, Jury Trial, § 460; 38 Cyc. 1874.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and action remanded for a new trial and further proceedings according to law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 N.W. 946, 162 Wis. 602, 1916 Wisc. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-volkman-v-waltermath-wis-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack