Case ID: serg-rawl_15/html/0026-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gibson, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Chambersburg,
    October 17, 1826.]
    FRAZIER and another, Administrators of FRAZIER, against FUNK.
    IN ERROR.
    The court may allow the jury to take out with them the statement of particular items of account by a party and calculations, but no item should be inserted, unless there has been some evidence given of it.
    This case was brought up by writ of error from the Court of Common Pleas of Perry county, and the plaintiffs in error were plaintiffs below. A verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant, and a certificate returned by the jury that the plaintiffs were indebted to him in the sum of two hundred and thirty dollars and eighty-two cents.
    The defendant admitted the plaintiff’s claim in the court below, which was founded on a note for one hundred and four dollars, but relied on a set-off to a larger amount, and the single question before the court here was, whether the court below had erred in allowing the defendant to hand to the jury, as they went out to consider of their verdict, the following paper, containing certain items with calculations.
    Henry Funk’s Statement and Set-oee, and Calculations MADE OE THE SAME.
    To boarding Paul Frazier, sen., washing and mending for him, and taking care of his person, from the first day of Jlpril, 1815, to the first day of February, 1819: three years and ten months,—equal to one hundred and ninety-six weeks, at two dollars per week, - - $392,00
    To taking care of the person of Paul Frazier from the time he was struck with the palsy; to wit, from the tenth day of May, 1818, to the first day of February, 1819: eight months and twenty days,—equal to two hundred and sixty days, at seventy-five cents per day, $195,00
    To cash paid Alexander Rodgers, for tax, 1,00
    To do. Esq. Doyle, M^arland’s paper, 4,65
    Interest from the 4th of May, 1819, to the 6th of February, 1S23, 1.05 5,70
    To cash paid James Given for funeral, 7.05
    Interest from the 3d of Jlugust to the same time, - ~ - 1,47 8,52
    $15,22
    
      
      Amount brought over, $602,22
    To cash paid Jesse Kirkpatrick, - 5,00
    Interest from the1'.3d of August, 1819, to the same time, .... 1,05 6,05
    To casli paid Henry Aken, 50,00
    Interest from the 1st of September, 1816, to the same time, - - * 19,25 69,25
    $75,30
    Note from Funk to Frazier, - - $104,00 $677,52
    Interest from the 14th of February, 1820, to the 6th of February, 1823, - - 18,72 122,72
    $554,80
    
      Eamsey, for the plaintiffs -in error.
    The court had no right to send out the defendant’s statement: it can be done only by consent. Alexander v. Jameson, 5 Finn. 238. The practice will give rise to management, and be attended with pernicious consequences.
    
      Metzger and Carothers, in reply,
    were stopped by the court.
   Gibson, J.,

delivered the court’s opinion. (Tilghman, C. J., being indisposed during the argument, took no part in the decision.)

With reasonable caution on the part of the court, no unfairness can be practised in sending out a paper such as this. Of its consequences, no test is so good as experience, and that proves not only its fairness, but its great utility. Indeed, where accounts are submitted to a jury, it would be impossible to get along without it. It originated with mutual convenience and the agreement of parties; but it has prevailed so long and so uninterruptedly as to have grown to be a rule of practice, and as such we are not bound to disturb it. It is doubtless susceptible of abuse; and the court ought to see that what purports to be a mere statement of particulars, be so in fact, that it be subservient only to purposes of calculation, and contain no item of which at least evidence has not been given. Thus restricted, a statement of particulars will afford salutary assistance to jurors, who are seldom expert at accounts. There was therefore no error in permitting the paper to go out.

Judgment affirmed.