*1 49? 1920. Mо.] 285 OCTOBER Huckshold v. United v. RAILWAYS
ALBERT HUCKSHOLD UNITED Appellant. COMPANY, Two, Division December Qualifications: Constitutional Juror:
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: jurors touching Question. Improper propounded questions objected although them, qualifications, to as fail- standard, not confer up do measure ruling by Supreme A appellate jurisdiction Court. error,, more mere to no than amounts which trial Constitution, coufer involving does wise construction jurisdiction upon Supreme Cоurt. City Appeal J. Circuit Court.—Hon. St. from Louis Judge. Hugo Grimm, Appeals. Transferred Court to St. Louis E. Albert D. T. Francis and Bates, Charles W. appellant. Nortoni separate promise jurors, Morton, the three respondеnt’s oath to under
Moser and made room voir to stand out counsel on the dire appellant’s right infringes opinion for their individual 2 the Constitution Article assured Section “right hy jury as trial which Missouri, vouchsafes enjoyеd.” (a) candid, This includes heretofore una- the twelve deliberate consideration present nimity nine under the than not less Henning Yaughn 30 600; Mo. Scade, Constitution. v. Harney, 408; 35 v. Mo. State Joe, & v. Hannibal 133 Withrow, rel. v. Mo. 519; ex Stаte (b) U. This Fisher, Pub. American right Co. jurors must be “the left free also that assures dictates of their with the act in accordance (c) Any thing Harney, 168 ment.” State 285 Mo.—32 SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI,
Hucltshold
part
litigant
parcel
attemuts
form
take
right”
оf “the substance
of the Con-
of that
violative
*2
stitution.
v. Fisher,
American Pub.
166 U.
(d)
challenge
by
isNor
matter waived
failure
jurors
s
cause because defendant
under
entitled
panel of.jmrors, impartial,
indifferent,
law to a full
untinctured and not
in advance. Theobald
committed
Billmeyer
St. Louis
Co.,
Transit
App.
Louis Transit
Co.,
A.
respondent.
Walz
& Marsalek
Safford
The'questions put
dire,
on the
did
voir
by
not violate defendant’s constitutional
of trial
jury.
certainly
juryman
It
is not
concur
of
right.
in a verdict which he
does not believe
contemplates
by
they
law
shall,
discussions,
possible,
harmonize their
views
but
shall
compromise,
yield
purpose
divide and
the mere
agreement.”
Ry.
McPeak v.
RAILEY, C.This action was commenced City in tiff, Court Circuit of the of St. Louis, Mis January 1918, on souri, 17, recover damages, personal the sum of on account $10,000, injuries upon during early inflictеd morning him, by alleged negligence December reason operation of defendant in the of one of its cars Van on city,, deventer Avenue in said which wagon struck riding. plaintiff on was The case was tried before jury, and the latter returned in favor plaintiff for $2,500. in due Defendant, time, filed motion for a trial, new which was overruled, and appealed cause court. this Such other matters may important, be dеemed will be considered later. necessary, It at becomes outset, determine jurisdiction has whether court of the cause. intimated, the record before us, that a constitutional question during progress mentioned was of the OCTOBER, 285 Mo.]
Huckshold has thereof, reason trial jurisdiction and that, below, controversy. pass the merits attempted alleged was appellant, in injected by counsel for into thе qualifications, jurors as to their examination of the following trial, shown at the etc. The occurred the record: eighteen jurors
“Thereupon, panel was called qualifica- as to their examined box to be cause, and in the course tions to act said following proceeding® examination the were- said to-wit: had,
“Spencer being number 16, Morten, W. duly having panel, answers been sworn make true may *3 questions propounded him be to touch- to ‘-such as juror qualifications to in act as said his as follows: you sign verdict Will “Me. Sanfoed: right you in do not think accordance with the is evidence and instructions? object I it'denies to that because Nobtoni:
“Me. judgment of the benefit the- to the defendant the by the all as Constitution. juror Every must use his : “Me. Sanford they stand think ment. is out what right. long think it is is as objection. “The Court overruled the ruling сourt, of the “To which its duly excepted then and counsel, there still continues- except. right thing “The I think I-can do the in the Juror: case. you Will Q. answer that
“Me. Sanfoed: sir; A. I Yes, in the affirmative? -willtake care of it right wаy. will— I Q. “Me. You always Sanford: will do what you A. I in yourself think is will right? case. Q. That I what mean? A.
“Me. Sanfoed: sir. Yes, COURT OP MISSOURI, SUPREME
1-Iucksh.old United being juror said “Ernest J. number Moser, panel, having duly answers make true been sworn touching questions may propounded him to such be jurоr cause, answered his to act as in said follows: you in favor of the
“Me. Sanford: If find Q. necessary plaintiff, you full will him the amount award you constitute what find from the evidence compensation to him casе to fair be a and reasonable injuries? his A. Yes, sir. object the reason that I “Me. Noetoni: juror upon
it commits for a his own stand judgment regard rights individual without to the defendant to benefit of the other ‘ jurors in accordance the Constitution. may Objection answer stand. Court: overruled.
“To which court defendant, excepted duly counsel, there and still continues except. your Q. What answer? A. ‘*Mr. Sanford: sir. Yes, juror No. “And such Ernest Moser, J. sat as one the twelve which tried the case. being “Edward F. number 18 panel, having duly been sworn to make true answers questions may. propounded to such him touch- *4 ing juror his to act as in said answered as fоllows: Q: hearing After the evidence and “Me. Safford: argument
the instructions the and jurors, of the other you go jury you after into the you, room, will find plaintiff, in favor signing it when comes to a verdict, passing you or him it, on awаrd such sum as find from the evidence this case and instructions to be a compensation injuries? fair and reasonable to him for his Object “Me. Nortoni: to that because, proposition it contains the while that talking after 285 Mo.] OCTOBER
Huekshold United v.. jurors, it, considering other matter over and it with juror notwith- out, nevertheless, commits the to stand judgment provided, for standing the concurrent judgment his to Constitution; stand out a judgment. say violativе own it is individual We by jury right a trial to defendant’s constitutional the Constitution. juror ought contend that We “Mr. Saeeord: sign his own individual with to a unless meets approval. would concur Otherwise, whenever seven irrespeс- sign verdict, other would be five bound right they thought or not. tive of it was whether forming juror in that the his I think “The Court: opinion opinion deciding adhere his whether to opinion perfect change to consider his has eight thе other are six or seven or whether opinion. He has take different finally up But when he makes his mind consideration. judgment. according ought to his own I vote he juror. proper view of the of a think willing listen counsel and the should be He jurors, ought argument to be will- of the other majority fact that others consider differently up but he he, think than should his. make in accordance his own and should vote own duty. my judgment. I think his cannot make that is I than that. views clearer court
“To which duly excepted and still and there continues counsel, except. explanation I think with the of the- Court: ought to be clear. attitude of court the my sir; Yes, : I will usе Rohrkasse “Mr.
ment. F. No. Edward sat such
“And as one of twelve which tried the case. “Thereupon including twelve Nos. 17 duly sworn,” etc. were selected and *5 502 OP SUPREME COURT MISSOURI.
Huckshold Co. v. incorporated The foregoing matters are also in^ motiоn for a trial. new acquired jurisdiction Has this court over the h ground o that some real constitutional by defendant has been violated the action of the trial practically If so, court heretofore mentioned? then every tried the lower case can be before a inject manipulated alleged so some as the case question in the constitutional examination of to serve, etc. If this kind practice permitted pass should be here, muster there be work for appeals, would but little the several courts of be this court would soon overwhelmed with cases like slightest bar, at the оne which there is not the merit alleged question presented. as to the constitutional jurors.were qualified is not claimed that to sit aside from what occurred in their questions propounded If by examination aforesaid. plaintiff,"and counsel were improper, permitting the action of the court in same could have been reviewed Appeals, Court of foregoing well as court. If the sufficient tо cast jurisdiction upon every court, adverse against rejection admission or every ruling against testimony, adverse it, in the giving might, instructions, or refusal with the same propriety, infringement claimed of defendant’s jury. оf trial constitutional jurisdiction, alleged on account points presented, is without merit and cannot be sustain Ins. 220 [Bealmer Co., v. Fire S. l. ed. W. c. 957-8; 280 Burrows, McManus v. Mo. 217 S. W. l. c. 514; rel. v. 193 W. State ex S. Garey 570; Woodman, v. 983; Jackson, 184 S. с. Carson W. l. M. K. Ry. & T. Kemper 1039; 184 W. Mill. Co., v. Mo. Ry. P. Stegall Pigment 502; 178 S. W. Co., & Chem. Co., Canning Packing & 719; Co. v. Evans, 238 Mo. 198 Railroad, 190.] Sublette OCTOBER TERM, Mo.] *6 Adelman v. Altman. applied the foregoing facts authorities,
The when room cavil or doubt leave no heretofore sеt out, plain duty of transfer the to the this court'to case to Appeals, accordingly which is the Louis Court of Mozley, CC., concur. White done. and foregoing CURIAM:—The of PER Railey, hereby adopted opiniоn of the court. as the All C., is judges concur. al.; B. ALTMAN ADELMAN CLEM et BESSIE Ap CARROLL KANSAS MARTIN J. CITY, and pellants. Two, December
Division Question: Constitutional Eliminated APPELLATE JURISDICTION: building process A and Verdict. was con- Instruction large quantity piled struction, had material the contractor and building; an front of automobile driven street in the on the plaintiff passing down the she was ran around drunken driver material, city pile contractor and she sues the and the leave, person damages. “no shall The ordinance that left, placed deposited, deposit, place or to be cause in or or or any thing sidewalk, any or so as to article whatever obstruct had encumber the same.” sidewalk been exca- otherwise line, no that there was curb sidewalk in front to the so out vated Held, telling building. instruction “if that line, curb so had been excavated out that there the sidewalk there, relating longer said ordinance sidewalk nowas application have no would on sidewalks to the obstructions ground recovery constitute whatever would and situation against plaintiff action,” a verdict contractor and entirely' city, ordinance from eliminated constitutionality eliminated consequently Supreme ordinance, Court does validity ground the ordinance is jurisdiction on the question in the case. still Jury. Presumption Favor of -: --—: In Where -: jury that, that there was no side- found instruction told relating building, certain ordinance to the walk in front- of