The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-11-21
CASES OF INTEREST

VsAOLO UE 1aS ! 6ftAO
 PIAZZA AS DWELLING HOUSE. Common law burglary being defined as the breaking and entering of a i dwelling house of another in the | nighttime with intent to commit a I felony, is a piazza such a part of a i dwelling house as to make it a sub 5ect. of burglary? In State vs- Puck ett, 7s Southeastern Reporter, 7SIs de feK1dant was charged with breaking and. entering with intent of commit ting a felony. The evidence showed that he, on damp and rainy night,
 was found under suspicious cireurn stances on the piazz of the house in question The piazza was one with a baIustrade two and one-haf feet shigfl, and had low picket gates to keep out dogs and chickens The de Tersdant did not enter the dwelling house proper at all and there was no evidence that he stole anything or fEnzsde1 any. overt act, to commit a fe1- eny- The Supreme Court of South tCarellna holds that this did not con lStit1He burglary the court in part saying The entry of a piAxH3 at F4ached to a dwelling house, outside of she house, the place where collectors Sare accustomed to wait until some N0ne in the house responds to a ring foS- knock, or to enter and sit on the lpAazza. to get out of the rain, or sun,
 
 f&a$xe, but 1t Is quite different from aopez1dng the closed doors of a house landA 1ntruding in the .sanEtfty of the tdwecinE" The conviction is reversed
 NDEATTv1NG CONTRIBUTDRY fNEGI ETCzE0lCE- Plaintiff, a common aaborex, sustained personal injuries while employed in defendant's mill In his opening statement, plaintiffs sat4orney, among other things said that
 
 knight be called an ordinarily bright Exnan-, Objection was made that no tfoundation had been laid in the dec k5aration or notice given of claim of tuenea1 deficiency in p1ainttf.. Plain s4iff's counsel contended that they were krot claiming that they could recover A'y reason Of the incOmpetency of Spgaintiff, but that mental Incompetent lev could be shown to negative con E%rnbHtory negligence The objection t-H as sustained Upon the same Ques- tfcns arising on the examination of one Of the witnesses, an; objection was Eagains sustained, plaintiffs counsel | kaga4ne claiming that it negatfved con kSribaItory negligence In Hill vss Alp Tram Smith & Son, 142 Northwestern ERepor<ers 565, the court in. affirming 1.-the 5utagment said= @In our opinion Ets1e. couEt was correct in holding in the EnsGant ease that The defendant 11n-s der the declaration had a right to, as sIEnne that plaintiff came into court as
 an adult of ordinary intelligence. An adult in charge of machinery is pre- szlzned to possess ordinary intelligence land c1pacity, and when parties come l1ntr court claiming that the defen- hdant is negligent for placing an tn- heompetsnt person in charge of dan egerous machinery, that the ser want is excused from negligence be- cause he Is mentally incompetent, splaintin claiming these rights becstuse of E1nco1npetency is in duty bound to ! lappEise the defendant of such claims in Eis decIarat1on-'
 JURY AGREES TO DLsAGREE.- Right to trial by jury is ably present ed in a late case From the Supreme Court of Alaba1na9 entitled Meadows Ies. State, 62 Southern Reporter 737. In that case the jury retired to de- D. They remained in the jury room until Il D. m-, when they were taken by the sheriff to a lodging place wheHe they spent the night At 7 a. m of the following morning they I again returned to the jury room, where i they remained until II a. m- of that day At that time they returned into I the courtroom and handed the clerk a paper writing. The presiding Judge then asked the jury if they had agreed upon the5r verdict and they replied that they had The clerk thereupo71 read under the direction of the trial kjudge the writing which had been E11ended to him and which was as fol- t1ows- 'We, the jury, agree to dis tAgFee The court thereupOn stated ito the jury @'Gentle1nen return to iyoUr room and resume your ,defibera- Efio1zs, and don't come back any more kwith anything like that In about lone hour afHer that time the jury re- sturned into the court with a verdict l iof guilty and saying that defendant EEhould suffer death On appeal the lccuFt holds that a.hough it cannot be l ksaid that the trial judge intended by Ethe above remarks to coerce the jury Hnfo a verdict, yet the remarks did EhaEe such a tendency and, consider ling the speedy verdict; which follow led it was probably Influenced by the fEaic remarks. Before the remarks Ewere made the jury had been out of 1.-the courtroom for Is hours. As to kthe language of the verdict that the E5ury agreed to disagree the court leays: This language of the jury and ttheir conduct the named occa. Esion should be given, however, an honest and a fair interpretation; and sso interpreting it, the jury, we think, | sby what they said and did meant to Uniform the court, and did in fact in- form the court, that after many hours of deIiberation, their views arising put iiof the evidence were so divergent that they had come to the conclusion that 4hey could not agree upon a verdict. 1 h,he jury may have understood the | trial judge, in his remarks to them irvfen they brought in the paper writ | dpg. to say, in effect, Go back to your l ljury room It is contempt of this | court for a jury not to be able to | agree upon a verdict Don't come | back into this courtroom without a | verdict At any rate, when the jury did come back into the courtroom l they brought in a verdict, and they knew when they did so, that tn ey were not then subject to the censure |