This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 edition. Excerpt: ...twice. The first quotient was so repugnant to the convictions of some, because too large, that they refused to be bound by it. The second quotient, although much larger, was returned by the jury into Court, and is the verdict before us. It is well settled law, that a verdict determined in this manner is a bad verdict. If the jury conclude its deliberations by such an operation, if the last step in getting at a verdict be the terminal step in such an operation, both in reason and au th0rit_' the verdict is bad. 4 Johns., 487; 1 Cowen, 238; 5 Cal., 45. But if the operation be merely mediate and not determinate, if it be resorted to merely to acquaint individual jurors with the average sense of the jury on the question of damages, which damages are subsequently to be determined by agree nient, then there is neither reason nor authority for holding the verdict l1'O_ll(, (l by the operation. 5 Cal., 45; 1 Graham and Waterman on New Trials, 102, 108, and cases cited; 2 Id., 378. 380 and cases cited. The number of times the operation is indulged in is immaterial, except perhaps as an index to the purpose which has induced it. How many times soever it be performed, if the last time it be not determinate, the verdict is not bad by reason of it; but if the last time it be determinate, is thoroughly bad. In this case, a second operation seems to have determined the verdict. It resulted in a sum which was returned into the Court below, and there received, as the true finding of the jurors, one and all; while from the aflidavits it sufficiently aypears that it was so returned not because a true joint and several finding but because it was the result of the second operation of making, addition and division. T Affidavits of jurors cannot be...