Coughnet v. Eastenbrook
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Eastenhroolc sued Coughnet, and others, before the justice, and declared uPon a Dote or agreement to pay him a certain sum per month, for his services as a soldier, &c. One of the defendants, 7 7 Coughnet, only was taken.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Eastenhroolc sued Coughnet, and others, before the justice, and declared uPon a Dote or agreement to pay him a certain sum per month, for his services as a soldier, &c. One of the defendants, 7 7 Coughnet, only was taken. The return was very short, and ° ’ / . , , . , . J ’ , stated that the cause was tried by jury ; that it was submitted to them, and, after having retired, the jury returned with a verdict in favour of the plaintiff, for fourteen dollars and costs> uPon which a judgment was entered. Nothing was men-^one(^ an7 constable…
1Per curiam
The return is very imperfect, and injustice may, perhaps, be done for want of a more perfect statement of the proceedings below. The case of Van Doren v. Wilcox, (2 Caines’ Rep. 373.) is in point, to show, that if it appear from the return that the jury retired, and nothing is said about a constable’s being sworn to attend them, it is a fatal omission, not to be supplied by intendment. This objection cannot be surmounted ; it grows out of the positive direction of the statute, that a constable shall be sworn to attend the jury. This is not an omission or misrecital of an oath merely, so as to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Cahill v. Delaney, New York County Courts1901
- Fulton v. Yuill, New York County Courts1898
- Douglass v. BlackmanNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- LeBlanc v. Newby, New York County Courts1933
- Gibson v. SeymourSupreme Court of Vermont · 1831