Case Name: JULIA BAUNACH AND FRANK BAUNACH, RESPONDENTS, v. ISADORE LIEBMAN, APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1923-01-19
Citations: 98 N.J.L. 554
Docket Number: 
Parties: JULIA BAUNACH AND FRANK BAUNACH, RESPONDENTS, v. ISADORE LIEBMAN, APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
JULIA BAUNACH AND FRANK BAUNACH, RESPONDENTS, v. ISADORE LIEBMAN, APPELLANT.
Submitted December 11, 1922
Decided January 19, 1923.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
“The only ground upon which the appellant seeks a reversal of the judgment brought before us on his appeal is that the court denied" his application for the withdrawal of a juror and the declaration of a mistrial, because of alleged improper matter which was brought out by plaintiff’s counsel in the presence of the jury.
“It is enough to say, in disposing of this ground of appeal, that the general rule with relation to- this subject is that the refusal to withdraw a juror, and thereby produce a mistrial, is a matter that rests in the discretion of the trial judge, and is not assignable as a ground for reversal. Heiler v. Goodman's Motor, &c., Co., 92 N. J. L. 415. Whether exceptional circumstances might justify the removal of a case from the operation of this rule would seem, from the declaration of the Court of Errors and Appeals in the cited case, to be an open one; but, assuming that this is so, we find nothing in the case at bar to justify such a course.
“The judgment under review will be affirmed.”.
For the appellant, Jacob Schneider.
For the respondents, John W. McGeeJian.. Jr.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — Tins Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Black, Katzenbach, Whyte, Ueppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, Ackerson, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.