Head & Metzger v. Langworthy & Bros.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Dubuque_ District Court. Answer of garnishees taken; issue thereon; trial, and verdict for plaintiffs. Defendants moved for a new trial, for the reason, among others, that “the Court charged the jury, partly orally, or gave verbal explanations to the jury of the written charge.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Dubuque_ District Court. Answer of garnishees taken; issue thereon; trial, and verdict for plaintiffs. Defendants moved for a new trial, for the reason, among others, that “the Court charged the jury, partly orally, or gave verbal explanations to the jury of the written charge.” An affidavit of defendants’ attorney (which is sustained by that of two of the defend-ants), filed in support of the motion, after setting out the portion of the charge complained of, states:' “That, at the time of hearing the above, I supposed that it was embodied by said Court in its written charge;…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
Not without much doubt, we have concluded to affirm this judgment.
That it is erroneous to orally explain or modify an instruction asked by either party, we entertain no doubt. It is equally error for the Court, on its own motion, to charge the jury verbally. Such charge must be exclusively in writing. §§ 3057-3060, Rev. of 1860, and see Straton v. Paul, 10 Iowa, 139; Pierson v. Baird, 2 G. Greene, 235. But an error in this respect cannot be assimilated to a matter going to the jurisdiction of the Court; and hence) as claimed by the appellants, there is no analogy between this case and that of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Strattan v. PaulSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bradway v. WaddellIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Erwin v. FillenwarthSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- City of Atchison v. JansenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
- State v. HardingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1891
- Mazzia v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1888
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.