Rizzoli v. Kelley
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for personal injuries. Trial by jury. Verdict for tbe defendants. The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict, and also that a new trial be granted, because, upon the request of the jury for further instructions, they were brought into court and so instructed in the absence of the plaintiff and his counsel. The motions were denied, and the plaintiff excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The jury, by their own request, were brought into court and given further instructions, in the absence of the plaintiff and his counsel. It is not stated what the instructions were, and there was no request for such statement. There is no complaint that they were not correct or applicable, but a suggestion merely that they may not have been. It was the plaintiff’s right to have them stated if he wished it; and in the absence of such statement it must be presumed they were correct and such as the facts of the case called for.
The additional instructions were given in open court. That this may…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Chapman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
- Kullberg v. O'DonnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
3Cited by3 opinions
- Flournoy v. Munson Bros.Supreme Court of Florida · 1906
- Van Cott v. WallUtah Supreme Court · 1918
- Parkinson v. Concord Street RailwaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1901