Stamm v. Coates
Supreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota
Appeal from the district court of Minnehaha county. The facts are stated in the opinion. We desire to call attention to the following sections of our Code of Procedure: Sec. 248. “And no judge shall instruct the petit jury in any case, civil or criminal, unless such instructions are reduced to writing. ” Sec. 249. ‘ ‘And all instructions so given and read, shall be taken by the jury in their retirement, and returned into court with their verdict.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Minnehaha county. The facts are stated in the opinion. We desire to call attention to the following sections of our Code of Procedure: Sec. 248. “And no judge shall instruct the petit jury in any case, civil or criminal, unless such instructions are reduced to writing. ” Sec. 249. ‘ ‘And all instructions so given and read, shall be taken by the jury in their retirement, and returned into court with their verdict.” Now, does Section 248 mean that the instructions of the court are to be in writing or not? Even in a state where there was no such statute as ours,…
1Opinion of the Court
Edgbrton,‘C. J.
This action was brought in the district court.for Minnehaha county, and a verdict returned by a jury for the plaintiff. The case is removed to this court upon the following exceptions by the defendant: ‘‘Assignment op error. Respondent assigns as error: (1) The court erred in not reducing his charge to the jury to writing. (2) The court erred in not giving his charge to the jury, to be taken by them in their retirement and be returned by them with their verdict. ” *72It appears that the instructions of the court to the jury were given orally and taken down in short hand by the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Frye v. FergusonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Davis v. C. & J. Michel Brewing Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1913