Case Name: Daniel E. Christie, Resp't, v. Robert Bowne, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-02-12
Citations: 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 157
Docket Number: 
Parties: Daniel E. Christie, Resp’t, v. Robert Bowne, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 59
Pages: 157–157

Head Matter:
Daniel E. Christie, Resp’t, v. Robert Bowne, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed February 12, 1894.)
Trial—Verdict.
That the verdict is received in a room different from that, in which the trial was had, does not invalidate it.
Appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and the judgment entered thereon and all proceedings taken thereunder, and for a new trial on the ground of the alleged invalidity and irregularity of said verdict.
Oliarles Strauss, for app’lt; Henry L. Brant, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
The affidavits in support of the motion allege that the verdict was received in a private room, which is contradicted by the opposing affidavits. The court have personal knowledge that the room described is a public room occupied by this court for many years for the hearing of motions and the trial of causes. The facts resolve themselves to this: 'I'hat the trial was begun in one room, and finished in another, across the hall from the first. This did not prej udice any right of the defendant. Besides, it was the defendant's fault that the verdict was taken in his absence. It was his duty to remain with the judge, and not the judge's duty to keep the jury in waiting until defendant's attorney arrived, especially as he left no word with the judge that he should be sent for when the jury came in. Again, we think, if the defendant had any merit in this matter, he waived it by not moving nt once, and by making other motions not consistent with his claim upon this motion. Order affirmed, with costs.