Brooks v. Barth
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court. — H It is certainly quite obvious that the natural effect of the language used by the judge in his address to the jury was to coerce them into making the verdict returned by them. Appellant’s motion for a new trial should have been sustained for that reason.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court. — H It is certainly quite obvious that the natural effect of the language used by the judge in his address to the jury was to coerce them into making the verdict returned by them. Appellant’s motion for a new trial should have been sustained for that reason. The courts of this State, in a number of well-considered cases, have uniformly held the use of language of similar import, by a trial judge, in communicating with the jury, to be reversible error. McPeak v. Railroad, 128 Mo. 644, and cases cited; State v. Hill, 91 Mo. 423; Edens v. Railroad, 72 Mo. 212;…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
The action is in replevin for the recovery of four brood sows. The judgment was for defendant. After a timely but ineffectual motion for new trial plaintiff appealed.
The ease is here on a full transcript showing that an affidavit for appeal was filed, but the affidavit itself is not in the record. For this omission respondent contends that the cause is not here by appeal. The failure of the clerk to incorporate the affidavit was an omission that might have been supplied if a timely suggestion had been made. If the affidavit was insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court to hear the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. HillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Randolph v. LampkinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
3Cited by4 opinions
- Brady v. St. Louis Public Service Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1950
- Brady v. St. Louis Public Service Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1950
- Mar v. Shew Fan QuiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Brooks v. BarthMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905