
    Hamilton v. Barton.
    ,. . 1. Error: without prejudice. The party against whom a verdict is rendered cannot complain of the ruling of the court permitting the jury to reduce the amount of the verdict, when the record shows that no exceptions were taken to rulings upon trial, no evidence preserved, and no other steps taken by which he could have escaped the payment of the entire verdict.
    2. Verdict: correction op omission. It is not error to permit a jury, after it has returned a sealed verdict into court, to correct an error in the verdict which has occurred through inadvertence only.
    3. Practioe: signing record. The signing of the record of the District Court by the presiding judge is not essential to the validity of judgments entered therein.
    
      Appeal from Madison District Court.
    
    Saturday, June 16.
    Practice: correction oe sealed verdict, &o.— Action by payee against maker of two promissory notes which, at the date' of the trial, would, with interest, amount to about $271.50. The- defense was, that the notes were given for the purchase-money of a stallion, and that the defendant was entitled to recover by way of set-off or cross-claim a large amount as damages for false representations and. breach of warranty.
    The bill of exceptions recites, that the jury, after argument and instructions from the court, “ retired to deliberate on their verdict in charge of D. M. Bayles, a sworn bailiff, with instructions from the court to seal their verdict and deliver it to the bailiff; that on the next morning the bailiff, D. M. Bayles, presented in open court the sealed verdict of the jury as follows: 1 We, the jury, find for the defendant, $283.50’ (signed by all the jury); whereupon the plaintiff gave notice of a motion in arrest and for a new trial. The jurors were all present pursuant to the prior order of the court, except two, at the reading of the foregoing verdict; thereupon one of the jurors arose and said the intention of the jury was to deduct the notes from the amount of the verdict; owing to this informality, the court thereupon sent for the two absent jurors, and then sent the jury Back into the room to correct the informality in their verdict, to which the plaintiff objected. In a short time the jury returned into court with the following verdict: ‘We, the jury, find for the plaintiff $12TW’ One °f the talesmen, at plaintiff’s instance, gives an affidavit in substance stating that he understood he was discharged, when a verdict had been agreed upon, and delivered to the bailiff, and was not required to be at court next morning; that after the verdict had been delivered to the bailiff, and before it was read in open court, “he conversed with one Edward Sherman and others about what the verdict was in said cause.” This is all of his affidavit.
    The plaintiff files an affidavit, stating on the next morning one of the jurors told him that their verdict was $283.50 for defendant; that they had made a mistake, and that he intended to tell the court so, and this was before the verdict was opened and read in open court. Upon this state of facts, the plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied; and this is the error complained of in this appeal. Plaintiff appeals.
    McPherson, Murray & Wainwright for the appellant.
    
      Leonard & Mott for the appellee.
   Dillon, J.

I. As we affirm the ruling of the court below, under tbe special circumstances of tbe , x caSe; ^ 1S important that these be borne in mind.

It is to be noted, that it is tbe plaintiff and not tbe defendant who appeals. And tbe plaintiff complains of tbe action of tbe court wbicb resulted in reducing tbe amount of the verdict against bim from $283.50 to $12.

In tbe record before us be has no evidence, no exceptions to rulings upon tbe trial, nothing to show that be could have escaped from a judgment for $283.50, if tbe court bad not taken the precise course that it did. Tbe action of tbe court benefited bim, and it seems not a little ungracious in him to make it tbe subject of complaint.

That there was, through inadvertence, an omission by the jury to deduct the amount of tbe notes is . u qU1te clear. Tbe contest was on tbe amount of defendant’s damages. This tbe jury fixed at $283.50.

Tbe amount of tbe notes was not a subject in dispute, and hence, it was overlooked. Tbe mistake was a very natural one. The jury asserted it. Tbe court was satisfied of it. Tbe plaintiff did not attempt to negative it by tbe affidavit of jurors (wbicb be took upon other points), or in any other way.

Tbe correction in tbe verdict consists simply (as a computation shows) in deducting tbe amount of tbe notes sued on and interest thereon from tbe first verdict.

We do not regard this action of the court as allowing the jury “ to disagree ” to their verdict, within the meaning of section 3075 of the Revision.

They conversed with no one prior to the sealing and delivery to the bailiff of their verdict; and even after that, with no one, so far as shown, upon the merits of the case.

II. There is nothing in the point as to the failure of the late Judge Gray to sign the records. These had not been made up at the adjournment of the term of court at which the trial was had, and the judge deceased before the next term. Childs v. McChesney, ante.

And it is not essential, even if it be proper, that the record should have been signed by Judge Nourse, the successor of Judge Gray.

Affirmed. '  