Case Name: Morehead et al., Overseers of the Poor, v. Brown
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-02-04
Citations: 13 N.Y.S. 197
Docket Number: 
Parties: Morehead et al., Overseers of the Poor, v. Brown.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 13
Pages: 197–199

Head Matter:
Morehead et al., Overseers of the Poor, v. Brown.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.
February 4, 1891.)
Justices of the Peace—Sufficiency of Verdict.
In an action in a justice’s court, for penalties for violation of the excise laws, a verdict was rendered in the following form, “We finde the defende §100 dollars; ” and subsequently verbally explained by the jury to the court, and then expressed in writing, “We finde the defende of two offenses, fifty dollars each. ” Held, that the verdict should not be set aside, on appeal, as too uncertain and irregular to support a judgment. Learned, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Ulster county court.
Action by John Morehead and another, overseers of the poor of the town of Marlborough, against Charles Brown, to recover penalties for violations of the excise law (Laws 1ST. Y. 1857, c. 628, § 14) by the sale of hard cider without a license. At the trial in the justice’s court, evidence was admitted, against defendant’s objection, of a fight between the purchaser of the cider and a third person, shortly after the purchase. Defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that “hard cider” is not within the meaning of the statute prohibiting the sale of “strong and spirituous liquors” without license, but the motion was denied by the justice. The verdict of the jury, as first rendered, was, “We finde the defende $100 dollars.” This verdict was not entered in the minutes, but, at the request of plaintiffs’ attorney, the court asked them to again retire and correct their verdict. At this request the foreman of the j ury stated to the justice, in open court, as follows: “We find the defendant for two offenses, and supposed when we expressed the amount the co.urt would know we meant two offenses.” At the request of the court, the jury again retired for the purpose of correcting their verdict, and returned after a short deliberation, with the following verdict: “We finde the defende for two offenses, fifty dollars each.” The court thereupon entered judgment for the plaintiffs, and against the defendant, for $100 damages, and $21.80 costs. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the county court, reversing the judgment of the justice.
Argued before Learned, P. J., and Landon and Mayham, JJ.
E. Dayton, .for appellants. C. M. Woolney, (Howard Ghipp, of counsel,) for respondent.

Opinion:
Landon, J.
I think the judgment of the justice's court was right upon the merits, and that the errors complained of did not prejudice the defendant. Code Civil Proe. § 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 setting it aside, cannot be too vigorously condemned. I advise a reversal of the judgment of the county court.
Mayham, J., concurs.