Woods v. Hart

New York Supreme Court

Woods v. Hart

3 Cai. Cas. 96, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 447

DecidedMay 15, 1805

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Cai. Cas. 96 (Woods v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woods v. Hart, 3 Cai. Cas. 96, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 447 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

Kent, G. J.

No one ought tq mix with a jury whilst deliberating. They should, to preserve the purity of justice, be kept by themselves, and on this point there is no difference between an inquiry before the sheriff, and a trial. The inquisition must therefore be set aside, each party paying his own costs. We order it thus, because neither is to blame ; and, were wfe to direct them to abide the event of the suit, it would in fact, as there has been a default, be saying the defendant is to pay them. This casef therefore, is to be distinguished from that of granting a new trial after verdict, for the misbehaviour of the jury. There, each of the litigants has a chance in his favor, and ordering the costs on such an occasion to abide the event of the suit, does not necessarily impose them on either. Here the event is known-

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

Kent, G. J.

No one ought tq mix with a jury whilst deliberating. They should, to preserve the purity of justice, be kept by themselves, and on this point there is no difference between an inquiry before the sheriff, and a trial. The inquisition must therefore be set aside, each party paying his own costs. We order it thus, because neither is to blame ; and, were wfe to direct them to abide the event of the suit, it would in fact, as there has been a default, be saying the defendant is to pay them. This casef therefore, is to be distinguished from that of granting a new trial after verdict, for the misbehaviour of the jury. There, each of the litigants has a chance in his favor, and ordering the costs on such an occasion to abide the event of the suit, does not necessarily impose them on either. Here the event is known-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cai. Cas. 96, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-hart-nysupct-1805.