Bunn v. Croul

Decided May 15, 1813

New York Supreme Court · decided 1813-05-15

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Croul brought an action on the case against Bunn, before the justice, He declared for damages done by the defendant to a certain trunk and clothes. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the writ was in cose, and the declaration in trespass ; but the justice overruled the motion. The defendant then pleaded the general issue. The evidence was not set forth in the return.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“■ “it. cannot fairly be inferred from the return that the explanation given by ;the justice to the jury after they had retired to make up their verdict was by ■«the consent or in the presence of the parties. If it was not, the allowance of .such a practice would be dangerous to the rights of parties. The justice’s «recollection might not.be accurate as to what the witness had said, and for «that reason the testimony might be misstated, when, if the parties were present, or the witnesses again called to repeat their testimony, any mistake might be corrected.” ■ •”

quoted by 1 later decision, including People v. Linzey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1813-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1926

8 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1It cannot fairly be inferred, from the return, that the explanation given by the justice to the ji^ry, after they had retired to make up their verdict, was by the consent, or in the presence, of the parties; if it was not, the allowance of such a practice would be dangerous to the rights of parties. The justice’s recollection might not be accurate as to what the witnesses had said; and for that reason the testimony might be misstated, when, if the parties were present, or the witnesses again called "to repeat their testimony, any mistake might be corrected. The judgment must be reversed.

¶2Judgment reversed.