Case ID: f_123/html/0408-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FIREMEN’S FUND INS. CO. v. HOFFMAN.
    (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
    June 11, 1903.)
    No. 59.
    John E. Snyder and Russell Duane, for plaintiff.
    C. E. Montgomery and J. G. Johnson, for defendant.
   J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

In spite of the earnest and capable argument on behalf of the plaintiff, I am still of opinion that the supplemental charge did not go beyond the limits set by the federal courts to the right of a trial judge to express his opinion on the facts to the jury. When I sent for the jury, it was evident that another disagreement was impending, and I was naturally desirous to bring a prolonged litigation to what I regard as the proper end. I refrained from expressing my opinion in the principal charge, but when it became likely that a third long trial would be the outcome I felt justified in telling the jury what I thought about the evidence. The authorities cited on the brief of defendant's counsel seem to me to support his contention that the supplemental charge did not go too far.

A new trial is refused.