Case Name: C. W. Thomas v. Henry Zushlag
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 225
Docket Number: 
Parties: C. W. Thomas v. Henry Zushlag.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 225–229

Head Matter:
C. W. Thomas v. Henry Zushlag.
If a party object to jurors, the objection should be saved by a bill of exceptions.
The sworn statements of jurors, to impeach their own verdict, should not be regarded. And, if they state that they disregarded the evidence and instructions of the court, they ought to be punished for a contempt.
The court may allow the jury to amend the verdict, where they have omitted to find a material fact.
It is no error to allow a plaintiff to enter a remittitur for a part of Us verdict.
Appeal from Comal. The case was tried before Hon. M. P. Horton, one of the district judges.
The suit was an account for the value of merchandise. The defendant plead the general denial and payment and set-off, without any specifications; and also a plea in reconvention, subject to the same objection. An amended answer set out an account in the nature of a set-off. The accounts were referred to an auditor, who, after stating the accounts, struck a balance of $558 47. The account was accompanied by a statement of facts, in the shape of a bill of exceptions. The auditor’s report seems to have been set aside as to $600, for wages of the plaintiff, which was left to the jury; as also a question of damages on the plea of reconvention, for unskillfulness. The charge of the court is immaterial, as there was no statement of facts. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff of $600 on the item of work, and allowed the defendant nothing on account of unskillful work. The judgment was in accordance with the agreement, as to the auditor’s report and this verdict. The defendant moved for a new trial on various grounds. But, as the case, is made to turn upon the affidavit of Thomae and the bill of exceptions, it is here printed in full. They are only a chapter in the record, all of which is a novelty.
“ Comes C. W. Thomae, the defendant, who leave had to amend his motion for a new trial, on oath deposeth: That the jurors, Tietze, Richter, Elbel, Eoerster, J. Gf. Saelzer, did not understand English enough to comprehend the evidence, the argument, and charge of the court; that one juror, W. Tietze, is so hard of hearing, that he did not understand the evidence, argument, or instruction of the court; that Thomae did not know, before the trial, that said juror was unfit for jury-service on that account; that juror J. Q-. Saelzer was asked, at the trial of the above-styled cause, under oath, whether he was a freeholder or householder, to which question the juror answered, Yes; but that, in fact, said Saelzer is not a freeholder, householder, or qualified juror, and that that fact was established in a criminal cause, when said juror was agiftn tried as to his qualification, and when it was proven that" he was not competent.”
The parties having agreed to have a sealed verdict, the jury made, and sealed up, and delivered the following verdict:
“We, the jury, find that the plaintiff" is entitled to the sum of $600, as wages, for the work performed by him.
“Feed. Dietz, Foreman.”
And the next morning, after having dispersed, the jury answered to their names, when the verdict was read in court; whereupon the court sent the jury hack to complete the verdict, by finding on the following charge of the court, to wit: The jury will also say, in their verdict, what, if any, damages the defendant has suffered from the unskillful or unworkmanlike manner in which the plaintiff did, or directed, or planned, or laid out the work to be done;- if they believe the work was not well done, so far as plaintiff was concerned in it, and for willfully delaying the work, if any damages of that kind are proved; if the failure of the mill to do good work is to be attributed to the use of gearing- or mill-stones furnished and used under the instructions of defendant, he is not entitled to damages for that cause of failure in the mill to do good work. Whereupon the jury again retired, and returned the following additional verdict:
“We find that the defendant has sustained damages in the sum of no dollars, on account of the unskillful work and delays of plaintiff. Herd. Dietz, Foreman.”
“To all of which defendant objected; which objection was overruled by the court; to which ruling defendant excepted. M. P. Norton, Judge.”
“When the motion for a new trial was taken up, defendant proposed and offered to prove, by jurors, the allegations in his motion, as to the incompetency and incapacity of the jurors, and their disregard to the charge and evidence; which proof was ruled out by the court, and not permitted to be given. To all of which defendant excepted. M. P. Norton, Judge.”
“When the motion for a new trial had been heard, the court pronounced that the verdict should be set aside, because the wages allowed were too high.
“After defendant’s counsel had left the court-house, the court said, that on entering a remittitur for $300 by plaintiff, tire verdict would be sustained; to which action of the court defendant’s counsel, being called in again, objected; which objection was overruled by the court, and to which ruling defendant excepted. M. P. Hortoe", Judge.”
The defendant appealed.
Appellee suggested delay, which opened all errors apparent of record. Ho errors had been assigned.
The Reporter finds no brief for the appellant.
Jacob Waelder, for appellee.
—In this case the appellant has failed to assign errors; nor does he prosecute his appeal: the record being brought up by appellee. By reference to the record, it will also be seen that there is no statement of the facts proved upon the trial. The appellee suggests that the appeal was taken for delay, and asks that the judgment of the court below be affirmed with damages.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
—The record contains no statement of the facts given in evidence on the trial. The only questions in the case, therefore, which merit any notice, are those presented by the several bills of exception taken by the defendant in the court below, and to be found in the record.
' In the motion for a new trial, it is stated that the defend- - ant excepted to certain jurors, when they were called, because they did not understand the English language. This statement cannot be regarded. The fact should be shown by a bill of exceptions.
One of the bills of exception states, that when the motion for a new trial was taken up, the defendant offered to prove by jurors the allegations contained in his motion for a new trial, as to the incompétency and incapacity of the jurors, and their disregard of the evidence and charge of the court. Jurors who propose to impeach their own verdict, on the ground that they disregarded the charge of the court and the evidence, ought to be punished for a contempt. As to the question of incompetency and incapacity, the defendant does not show, in his motion for a new trial, that the incompetency and incapacity of the jurors were not known to him before the jury was empanneled: and this is a sufficient reason for sustaining the action of the district judge in this particular. Upon the other question, of the right of the defendant to a new trial because of the deafness of one of the jurors, it is enough to say, that the defendant ought to have presented to the court some other evidence of the fact relied upon than his own unsupported affidavit.
Upon questions such as are here presented, this court will not undertake to revise the action of the district judge, except in a very clear case of error, and where it is apparent that the party complaining has been denied a right, and may have sustained injury by such denial.
It was not error for the court below, under the circumstances, to require the jury to amend their verdict, nor was it error to permit the plaintiff to enter a remittitur of a part of the amount of the verdict.
The judgment of the court below is
Aeeiiuied.