Hudson v. Minneapolis, Lyndale & Minnetonka Railway Co.

The ground upon which plaintiff moved for a new trial was an alleged irregularity in the proceedings of the court. The facts, as disclosed by the affidavits presented by the respective parties, and the statement of the judge who presided at the trial, were as follows: After the jury had been charged, they retired in the care of an officer to one of the jury-rooms to deliberate on their verdict. Later in the afternoon, the judge, having completed the other work of the day, but without adjourning court, retired to his chambers in the same building. Although court had not adjourned, yet, there…