Samuel Brazelton v. Warren L. Jenkins. a jury. Arnold v. Sanford, 14 Johnson's Reports, 422. This seems one of the chief arguments relied upon, in that case, for deciding that errors in fact might be corrected in that Court. It would seem, from the English books, that error in fact in an inferior Court cannot be corrected in the House of Lords, or in the Exchequer Chamber, because in neither of those Courts can there be a trial by jury. Such is the case with us. The act of Congress organizing this territory (section 9) declares that, in no case removed here from the District Court, shall a trial by jury take place in this Court. And the law makes no provision for sending an issue down for trial to the District Court. Upon the principles acted on by the Courts of other countries, therefore, it would seem impossible for us to correct the error in fact, complained of in this case. That cases of this nature may arise, involving the greatest degree of hardship and injustice, and which will be altogether remediless in a Court of law, may readily be imagined. But the remedy must be applied by the wisdom of the legislature, rather than by the discretion of the Court. But it is said that the pleadings in this case are such as to dispense *with the necessity of a trial by jury. *17 That the plea of the defendant in error is tantamount to a demurrer, and confesses every error in fact which is well assigned. This may all be true, but still, if, as a general rule, we are not authorized to take cognizance of, and to correct errors in fact, we cannot found so important a branch of jurisdiction upon a particular, and perhaps accidental, state of pleading. Besides, by the authorities on this subject, it seems to be settled that the plea of the defendant in error in this case only confesses those errors in fact, which are well assigned. If we cannot entertain questions of that nature, can any errors in fact ever be well assigned? Another error assigned is, the refusal of the Court below to grant a new trial. There is no doubt but that an erro Edward Powell v. The United States. neous decision of the Court below, on an application for a new trial, may be brought up here for review and correction, for such a power appears to be conferred by statute. Laws of 1836, p. 23. But as this is a question principally addressed to the discretion of the Court below, a strong case must be presented to authorize the interposition of this Court. The present case does not seem to us one of that nature. The grounds upon which the application for a new trial was founded are, first, that the damages were excessive; second, that the defendant was misled by an observation of the attorney for the plaintiff below, by reason of which he was absent from the trial. There is nothing before us from which we can infer either that the damages were excessive, or that the defendant below had any sufficient reason for neglecting to prepare for the trial. We, therefore, think that the judge of the District Court, in overruling the motion for a new trial, did not transgress the limits of a sound legal discretion. The judgment of the Court below is, therefore, affirmed. EDWARD POWELL V. THE UNITED STATES. Omission of an arraignment will be a sufficient ground for reversing a judgment (h). BY THE COURT, MASON, CHIEF JUSTICE. -The first error assigned in this case is, that there was no plea pleaded by the defendant below, previous to the trial. It is not absolutely necessary in all cases that the defendant should *18 actually plead. He will presume to plead not *guilty, even if he should stand mute, especially in capital But it is a general rule that the total want or omis cases. (h) See Rev. of 1860, title Arraignment," chap. 201, p. 800. Harrell v. Stringfield. sion of an arraignment will be a sufficient ground for reversing a judgment. 1 Chitty's Criminal Law, p. 418. Had the record stated that the defendant had regularly appeared and pleaded, an arraignment wonld have been implied by that act. As, however, there is no evidence from the record that the defendant pleaded, that he was arraigned, or that he even personally appeared, the judgment in this case must be reversed. There are other essential errors, but the one already examined being sufficient, the others need not be considered. Judgment reversed. HARRELL V. STRINGFIELD. Error to Des Moines. The technical phraseology of a verdict is not material, provided, the intention of the jury is evident beyond all question (i). A judgment will not be disturbed for a substantial defect in a verdict where the record shows that such defect cannot, by any possibility, operate to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error (j). This was an action of replevin, brought by Harrell against Stringfield, upon which the following verdict was rendered: "We, the jurors, find a verdict for the defendant and award him legal damages." Judgment was thereupon rendered against the plaintiff for costs of suit only. Two errors were assigned; first, that the verdict of the jury does not dispose of the issue; and, secondly, that the (i) See Gordon & Washburn v. Higley, page, ante, 13, and cases cited in note (ƒ). (j) See Rev. §§ 3111, 2978; Hollenbackc v. Haskins, 12 Iowa, 109; Blakely v. Bird, ib. 601. Harrell v. Stringfield. verdict is not found in accordance with the statute, which requires the jury, where they find for the defendant, to assess his damages. For the plaintiff in error, RORER & STARR. For the defendant, BROWNING & GRIMES. BY THE COURT, MASON, CHIEF JUSTICE. - The errors relied upon for reversing the judgment in this case *19 are, 1st, That the verdict of the *jury does not dispose of the issue. 2d, that the verdict is not found. in accordance with the statute which requires the jury to assess the damages. The action was originally commenced before a justice of the peace. In his transcript sent up to the District Court on appeal, he states that issue was joined, without declaring what that issue was. Upon that issue the verdict of the jury in the District Court was, "We, the jurors, find a verdict for the defendant and award him legal damages." This is certainly a very informal verdict. But the case comes nearly within the principle decided at the present term in the case of Gordon & Washburn v. Higley, except that the verdict was not rectified in form in the Court below. Whatever might have been the issue, there can be no doubt as to the intention of the jury. It would have been proper for the District Court to have changed the phraseology of the verdict, so as to have given it a correct technical form; but we do not deem it essential. As to the omission of the jury to assess damages for the defendant in pursuance of the statute, it is a defect which must have operated beneficially to the plaintiff, and, therefore, he will not be allowed to reverse the judgment on that account. We take this opportunity of recommending to the members of the bar greater care in relation to the entries in the records of the District Courts. While we are determined Wm. Rigglesworth v. Isaac Reed. not to disturb proceedings in those Courts, for technical errors which can work no possible harm, we shall not hesitate to do so whenever there are plausible grounds for supposing that such errors may create an injury to the party asking a reversal. The judgment of the Court below is affirmed. WM. RIGGLESWORTH v. ISAAC REED. A judgment below will be reversed where the name of the garnishee and the damages and costs are left in blank. This case was brought up by writ of error for several defects in the record below. Rigglesworth had been proceeded against in the Court below, as a garnishee in a suit wherein Reed was plaintiff, but in the *entry *20 of judgment his name had been left blank. The amount of costs and damages was also left blank. The name of BY THE COURT, MASON, CHIEF JUSTICE.- The proceedings in this case have been so irregular, and the record is so imperfect, that the judgment cannot be allowed to stand. The defects pointed out under the fifth and sixth head, in the assignment of errors, are fatal. the garnishee against whom judgment was rendered was left blank in that judgment. The amount of the costs and damages was also left blank. For these and many other errors, we think that the judgment below should be re versed. Judgment reversed. |