Knowles v. Van Gorder
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action on a promissory note by endorsee against maker. Defence, that the note was procured by fraud of one Mead, the payee, and was by him endorsed to plaintiff after maturity. At the trial in the district court for Winona county, before Mitchell, J., the defendant’s counsel, in addressing the jury, commented at considerable length upon evidence which had been offered by him, but excluded by the court.
Read the full summary
Action on a promissory note by endorsee against maker. Defence, that the note was procured by fraud of one Mead, the payee, and was by him endorsed to plaintiff after maturity. At the trial in the district court for Winona county, before Mitchell, J., the defendant’s counsel, in addressing the jury, commented at considerable length upon evidence which had been offered by him, but excluded by the court. To these comments the plaintiff’s counsel made no objection, but the judge, of his own motion, checked them as improper. In the charge, the jury were instructed to disregard all evidence that…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
An application to set aside a verdict and for a new trial, upon the ground that the jury have been improp*198erly and unfairly influenced by counsel, is largely addressed' to the sound discretion of the trial court. That court has far greater advantages than an appellate court can possibly have for observing the character' and effect of the influence complained of. In view of these considerations, and upon looking at the facts appearing in the case, and the grounds assigned by the court below for its action in the premises, we find no reason for doubting that the discretion appealed to in the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Olson v. GjertsenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Stroncek v. Berkshire Life Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
- Riley v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898