Case Name: John Morehead and Cornelius Rhoades, App'lts, v. Charles Brown, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-02-04
Citations: 35 N.Y. St. Rep. 766
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Morehead and Cornelius Rhoades, App’lts, v. Charles Brown, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 35
Pages: 766–767

Head Matter:
John Morehead and Cornelius Rhoades, App’lts, v. Charles Brown, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed February 4, 1891.)
Verdict—Inaccuracy in written.
In an action for penalties, the jury returned a written verdict: “ We finde the defende $100." And on being required to correct it, returned a verdict: “We finde the defende of two offences fifty dollars each." The justice received the latter verdict and entered judgment for $100. Held> no error; that the inaccuracies in the verdict did not prejudice the defendant.
(Learned, P. J., dissents.)
Appeal from judgment of county court, reversing judgment of justice’s court The facts appear fully in the dissenting opinion.
E. Dayton, for appl’ts; C. M. Woolsey (Howard Chipp, of counsel), for resp’t.

Opinion:
Landon, J.
I think the judgment of the justice's court was right upon the merits, and the errors complained of did not prejudice the defendant Code Civ. Pro., § 3063.
The verdict was in writing, and accords with the illiteracy which is often an accepted test of the impartiality of jurors. The practice of requiring a verdict in writing is not prescribed by law, and if technical inaccuracy is to be made a pretext for settipg it aside, cannot be too vigorously condemned.
I advise a reversal of the judgment of the county court,
Mayham, J., concurs.