Was the verdict void because of its form? True enough, the form used by the jury was not one to which we have been accustomed in civil cases; rather, it is the form generally used in criminal cases. But this is not enough to invalidate the verdict if by inspection or by a reasonable construction we may apprehend its intendment. Code § 110-105.
In these cases the defendant was charged with specific acts of negligence, and in order to recover it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the jury that he
*310
had been guilty of one or more of them. The jury was so charged by the court. What, then, did the jury intend to say when returning a verdict of “We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty as charged?” The verdict may be construed in the light of the pleadings, the issues made by the evidence and the charge.
Harvey v. Head,
Can there be any doubt that the intendment of'the jury here was to say to the court and to the parties that the evidence had been weighed in the light of the court’s charge and that they had concluded that plaintiffs had failed to sustain any charge of negligence made in their petitions? We think not.
We have found no case in which the Supreme Court or this court has dealt with the exact situation here presented. But we do find that wherever it has come up in other states which have rules for the construction of verdicts similar to ours, the verdict has been upheld. E.g., Worford v. Isbel,
There can be no difficulty in construing these verdicts as being for the defendant. As the Iowa court observed in Wilson v. McCarty, supra, “It was a clear finding for the defendant, and would indicate that some of the jurors had knowledge of the old form of verdict in such cases, which was 'not guilty.’ ”
The verdicts were and are valid, though in a' form not in general current usage.
It is contended that the verdicts were not published and that for this reason the dismissal of the petitions was permissible. With this we cannot agree. The record indicates that when the jury had reached a consensus and returned to the box the judge inquired of them whether they had reached verdicts in the cases; one of them replied that they had and the judge then directed the clerk to receive and publish the verdicts. Thereupon the clerk took the petitions on which the verdicts had been written and read the verdicts in open court. This constitutes a publication.
Merchants’ Bank of Macon v. Rawls,
The verdict was neither imperfect nor informal. It needed no change to be valid in all respects. However, upon objection to the form of it by plaintiffs’ counsel the court directed the jury to alter the form so as to comply with the general current usage. This instruction or direction did not have the effect of disapproving the verdict or of rejecting it.
Meador v. Dollar Savings
Bank,
The verdict being valid in form, though not in accord with current general usage, having been received and published, it was beyond the power of the plaintiffs, their counsel or the court to dismiss the petitions.
Merchants’ Bank of Macon v. Rawls,
*312
Any attempt at voluntary dismissal, or order of dismissal, entered after publication of the verdict was null and void. “The plaintiff had lost his wager, and it was too late for him to withdraw the stake.”
Meador v. Dollar Savings Bank,
Vacation of the dismissal of the petitions and entry of judgment for the defendant upon the verdict was proper.
Judgments affirmed.