Verdict

6 The saying of the truth. The finding of a jury. The answer of the jury to the questions of fact contained in the issue formed by the pleadings.

7 General verdict.

This directly finds or negatives all facts in issue, in a general form.

Special verdict

When the jury finds the facts particularly, and submits to the court the questions of law arising upon them.7 A " general verdict " is that by which the jury pronounces generally upon all the issues for the plaintiff or for the defendant. A " separate-general verdict" is the finding, upon any of the issues. A " special verdict " is the finding of facts by a jury, as shown in their answers to questions submitted to them in writing.

8 'Brayley v. Ross, 33 Iowa, 508 (1871), Beck, C. J.; Stone V. Sanborn, 104 Mass. 324 (1870), cases; Newton V. Price, 41 Ga. 195 (1870); Lester v. Sutton, 7 Mich. 331 (1859); Bryant v. Lord, 19 Minn. 404 (1872); 1 Greenl. Ev. § 201, note; 2 Whart. Ev. § 1127. 2 Winchell v. Coney, 64 Conn. 31 (1886). See also Wilson V. Roots, 119 111..388 (1887). ' 2 Whart. Ev. § 872, cases; 3 Pars. Contr. 4, cases. < Chapman v. Polack, 70 Cal. 495 (1686), cases; Cragin u Powell, 128 U. S. 696 (1888). See generally Smith, Contr. 606; 2 Pars. Contr. 421; 2 Black, 604; 62 Cal. 638; 74 Me. 806; 121 Mass. 50; 183 id. 614; 144 id. 369; 64 Pa. 400. Milton V. Babson, 6 Allen, 324 (1803), Bigelow, C. J.; 2 Bl. Com. 379.

L. vere dictum, said by the truth. ' Day V. Webb, 28 Conn. 144 (1869), Waldo, J.; 45 Me. By a separate-general verdict the jury pass upon an issue that may be constituted of many facts; hy a special verdict, upon the existence of facts vrithout reference to any issue. A separate-general verdict is separate as to, the particular issu Cj as distinguished from any other issue, and general as to the particular issue; that is, it applies in cases where there is more than ope issue. A special verdict is based upon 13 Edw. I (1286), c.

30.

The jury state the naked facts, as they find them to be proved, and pray the advice of the court thereon; concluding, conditionally, that if upon the wkole matter the court should be of opinion that the plaintiff had cause of action, they find for the plaintiff; if otherwise, for the defendant. This is entered at length on the record, af tervard argued, and determined by the court. If error exists in a general verdict, it can be corrected only by a new trial. The usual course is to sustain a special verdict if it contains the facts necessary to a proper judgment upon the matter in controversy; the court of original jurisdiction may render such judgment as the case requires. Error apparent in the record is re-examinable on a writ of error. It is of the very essence of a special verdict that the jury find the facts on which the court is to pronounce the judgment according to law, and the court is confined to the facts so found. Stating the evidence of the facts is insufficient... The verdict is formally prepared by counsel, subject to correction by the court; after being found, it is entered on the record, and the questions of law are then decided by the court, as in a case of demurrer. In a court of error nothing is open for revision except the questions of law inf erentially arising upon the facts stated. The proceeding, lilce a bill of exceptions, enlarges the record by incorporating the facts of the case. Error apparent in any part of the record is within the revisory power.* By leave of court, the verdict may be prepared by the parties, subject to correction by the court, and may include agreed facts in addition to those found by the jury. The purpose is, that the cfiurt may have time to hear the parties and give the questions of law deliberate consideration.' Rulings on evidence are not properly included, any more than in an agreed statement of facts; because the verdict is entered on the record, and the judgment is based on the findings of the jury.'

See Case, 2, Stated; Finding, 4, Special. > [Witty V. Chesapealse, Ohio, &e. E. Co., 83 Ky. 29 (1884), Hines, C. J. ' 3 Bl. Com. 377; Cp Uins V. Biley, 104 U. S. 324 (1881). ' New Orleans Ins. Co. v. Piaggio, 16 Wall. 387-88 (1872), cases. 4 Suydam v. Williamson, 20 How. 432-33 (1857), cases, Clifford, J.; Sun Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ocean Ir)S. Co., 107 U. S. 600-1 (1882), cases, Matthews, J. Mumford v. Wardwell, 6 Wall. 432-33 (1867).

See, Privy verdict. Where the judge has left or adjourned court, and the jury, being agreed, in order to be delivered from confinement, obtain leave to give their verdict privily to the judge out of court: which verdict they afterward afiirm by a public verdict given openly in court; wherein, if they please, they may vary from the first verdict.' A privy verdict is not known in criminal practice; but that practice allows the judge to adjourn while the jury withdraw to confer, and to return in order to receive the verdict in open court. Finding such verdicts is seldom indulged; the practice would allow time for tampering with a jury.' Sealed verdict. A verdict which a jury seal up, return to court, and at the next sitting make known as their finding. Sealed verdicts are common. In each case, when the court is again session, the jurors assemble and announce their'flnding in all respects as if it had not been sealed.* See Poll, 1.

Public verdict

In this the jury openly declare that they have found the issue for the plaintiff or the defendant." When the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, the court may direct a verdict for the defendant.' See further Nonsuit. But the court cannot direct a verdict of guilty as to a criminal offense, even where the facts are admitted, and the question of guilt depends upon a matter of law left for the court to determine.' On the trial of a felony, at common law, a verdict cannot be rendered in the absence of the accused; and the record should show that he was present.' After a verdict for a plaintiff it is presumed he proved every fact indispensable to a recovery, though no evidence appears in the record to show it.' Where it is so palpable that the jury have erred as to suggest the probability that their verdict was the result of misapprehension or partiality, the court will set aside the verdict. ' special interrogatoi*ies to juries, see 20 Am. Law Rev 356-88 (1886), cases. 1 [3 Bl. Com. 377; 5 Phila. 124; 6 id. 520. 2 4 Bl. Com. 860. ' 3 Bl. Com. 377. United States v. Bennett, 16 Blatch. 372-75 (1879), cases; Doyle ti. United States, 11 Biss. 100 (1881). ' [3 Bl. Com. 377. Schofield V. Chicago, &c. R. Co., 114 U. S. 619 (1886). ' United States v. Taylor, 11 F. E. 470 (1882); ib. 475. 'United States v. Whittier, 13 F. E. 636 (1882); State V. Cartwright, 10 Oreg. 196 (1881), cases. ' Grignon v. Astor, 2 How. 340 (1844); Garland v. Davis, 4 id. 144 (1846); 3 Bl. Com. 394; 4 id. 376. "Mengis V. Lebanon Manuf. Co., 10 F. E. 665 (1882); Poole V. Chicago, &c. R. Co., 2 Mc Crary, 251 (1881); The courts will not set aside a verdict for excessive damages unless so excessive' as to evince prejudice, partiality, or corruption in the jury.' See also Behavior; Contrary; Instedot, 2; Jeopardy; Jdry; Lot, 1; Trial.