111 Pa. 42 | Pa. | 1886
delivered the opinion of the court, January 4th, 1886.
It would have been better if the learned judge of the court below had omitted from his charge the expression of his personal dislike to the lease: (See first assignment of error). It was not material to the issue upon trial.' Moreover, it was well calculated to prejudice the. case of the defendant. The' average juryman would not be likely to regard a lease of this nature with much favor, and when the court adds the weight of its condemnation, there is danger of the real merits of the case being lost sight of.
That something of the kind must have occurred in this case seems probable from the fact that the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $300, when there was nothing to justify it. ...
Under such circumstances it was error in the learned judge to instruct the jury that they might find punitive damages. The plaintiff was not entitled to any damages whatever. •
Judgment reversed.