Case ID: ga_74/html/0405-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blandford, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bryant & Lockett vs. Simmons.
    [Jackson, O. J., did not preside in this case, on account of providential cause.]
    After the evidence had closed, the arguments had been completed', and the jury had been charged with the case and retired for consultation, the court took a recess until the next morning, at the same time remarking that he would receive the verdict, if it was agreed upon at any time before eleven o’clock that night. The jury not agreeing, the judge, during the recess, and before eleven o’clock that night, in the absence of the parties on one side and ■ their counsel, and without their consent, had the jury brought into the court-room, and delivered another charge to them on the main points in the case:
    
      Held, that this was error, and will necessitate a new trial. The announcement of the court was notice that nothing more would be done in the case during the recess than to receive the verdict, and parties had the right to act upon this and absent themselves. 1 6a., 200; 1 Pick., 337; 124 Mass., 567; 8 Ohio St., 210.
    Judgment reversed.
    October 2, 1884.
   Blandford, Justice.