Case ID: miles_1/html/0267-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HYSLOP v. CROZIER.
    June 7, 1836.
    
      Rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted.
    
    During the trial of a cause on appeal from an award of arbitrators, the counsel stated to the jury that the arbitrators had found in favour of his client. A new trial was granted on the application of the opposite party.
    THIS case was tried before Jones, J. During the trial, one of the counsel for the plaintiff stated, that when the case was before arbitrators, under the act of 1810, (from whose award this appeal was taken) they had found for the plaintiff. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the defendant moved for a new trial on this ground.
    
      F. A. Raybold, for the rule.
    
      Holcomb and Holy, contra.
    
   Per Curiam.

A party cannot be permitted to state to the jury the result of a previous award in his favour. He cannot read such award to the jury in order to influence their minds. Shaeffer v. Kreitzer, 6 Binn. 480. And the stating the fact by the counsel, which has the same tendency, is too important an irregularity to be overlooked.

There must be strong special circumstances to induce the court, in cases of this kind, to refrain from granting a new trial.

Rule absolute.