Case ID: walker_4/html/0456-01.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

TROUT vs. HOLLINGSWORTH.
    The rules relating to the assignments of error should be strictly observed.
    Error to Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County. No. 183, January Term, 1884.
    The assignments of error were as follows:
    1. The learned Judge erred in charging the jury in such a manner as to control the verdict and leave no chance for the •defendant.
    
      2. The learned Judge in his charge to the jury went beyond the recognized limits in commenting upon the evidence and giving his opinion of the case.
    3. The charge of the learned Judge is in such terms as to lead a jury to entirely ignore the defendant’s side of the case.
    4. The learned Judge questioned the defendant’s examination of the work when the uncontradicted evidence was, that he had examined it before payment for it.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on April 21st, 1884, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

Rule XXIII of this Court declares “when error is assigned to the charge of the Court, or to answers to points, the part of the charge, or the points and answers referred to, must be quoted totidem verbis, in the specfication.” RULE XXIV declares inter alia, “Any assignment of error not according to the last rule will be held the same as none.” All the assignments of error in this case are to the charge of the Court, yet no one of them quotes the charge or any portion thereof. These rules are not new. They have been in force many years. Their enforcement is necessary to the reasonable ckspatch of business.

Judgment affirmed.