Gleason v. Strauss

Citations

• 5 Kan. App. 80
• 48 P. 881
• 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 499

Syllabus

<p>1. Separation oe Jury — without pier mi.ssion or admonition during argument of law questions, not ground for neiv trial unless injury to defeated party shown. It is the duty of the court to admonish the jury as required by section 279 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if they are permitted to separate either during the trial or after the case is submitted to them; but where the court has, prior to any separation of the jury, and at each adjournment of court, admonished them as to their conduct during such separations, this is a substantial compliance with the statute. The mere accidental separation of the jury during the trial of the case, when the court’s attention is occupied with the pleadings or instructions, should not be regarded as cause for a new trial, unless the losing party shows that he has been injured by such separation.</p> <p>2. -for short recess, ivithout admonition but admonition previously given, no new trial unless facts raise reasonable suspicion of injury. In civil cases, the mere fact that, during a recess of a few minutes, the jury were permitted to separate without being then admonished, where the court had previously admonished them as to their conduct during such separations, should not be regarded as reversible error, nor should a new trial be granted in such case, unless the facts touching such separation are such as to raise a reasonable suspicion of abuse.</p> <p>3. Misconduct oe Jury — not presumed, but must be proved. In the absence of some of the attorneys in the case, a juror asked the court a question, which the court declined to answer except in the presence of counsel. When the question was again mentioned by the court, the juror said, “ We have settled the question among ourselves.” During the interval, however, the jury had been in session in the jury room and had been permitted to separate for the night. B.'eld, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, the court will presume that the question was settled during the ses