
    R. E. L. DANIEL et al. v. TOWN OF BELHAVEN.
    (Filed 18 February, 1925.)
    Verdict — Evidence—Deliberation—Appeal and Error.
    Where upon the evidence in several consolidated cases to recover damages to the lands of the various parties, it is shown that the amount of damages, if any, each should recover would depend upon the establishment of different elements as to each, a verdict fixing a uniform per cent of the amount claimed by each as his damages obviously does not meet the requirement that the jury should deliberate upon the evidence and find the amount of damages in each case, and is properly set aside on motion.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Sinclair, J., at September Term, 1924, of Beaueoet.
    The plaintiff Daniel alleged that the defendant had wrongfully obstructed the flow of the water from his land through its natural outlet and drainway and had thereby caused the water to be ponded thereon and that he had suffered loss by reason of damage to his crops and land.
    The defendant denied these allegations.
    Similar actions were brought by the other plaintiffs and by consent they were tried together.
    The jury returned the following verdict:
    “1. Did the defendant, Town of Belhaven, negligently install an inadequate and insufficient tile or drainway in street at Shoemake Creek, as alleged? Answer: ‘Yes.’
    “2. Did the defendant, Town of Belhaven, negligently pond water upon the lands of plaintiffs, as alleged? Answer: ‘Yes.’
    
      “3. If so, in wbat amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff, E. L. Swindell, damaged? Answer: ‘$90.00.’
    “4. "Wbat amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff, R. Y. Credle, damaged? Answer: ‘$450.00.’
    “5. Wbat amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff, R. E. L. Daniel, damaged? Answer: ‘$180.00.’
    “6. What amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff, W. E. Erisbee, damaged? Answer: ‘$150.00.’
    “7. Wbat amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff, Ed. Hargrove, damaged? Answer: ‘$180.00.’
    “8. Wbat amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff, E. E. Gaboon, damaged? Answer: ‘$360.00.’”
    In tbe margin of tbe paper on wbicb tbe verdict was written is tbe following entry: “Tbe jury agrees tbat eacb man shall be paid 30 per cent of bis claim.”
    Tbe damage alleged in eacb case was as follows: “R. E. L. Daniel, $600; E. L. Swindell, $300; E. E. Caboon, $1,200; R. Y. Credle, $1,500; W. E. Erisbee, $500; Ed. Hargrove, $600.”
    Tbe plaintiff tendered a judgment in eacb case for tbe amount awarded by tbe jury and costs. Tbe defendant moved to set aside tbe verdict, and tbe court-made tbe following order: “It appearing upon tbe face of tbe verdict tbat it is not based upon tbe evidence as applied to eacb case, but tbat tbe jury adopted a general rule to give eacb plaintiff thirty per cent of tbe amount eacb claimed in bis complaint, it is tbe opinion of tbe court tbat tbe verdict is improper and it is hereby set aside as a matter of law.”
    Tbe plaintiffs excepted and appealed.
    
      H. G. Garter for plaintiffs.
    
    
      Tooley & McMullan for defendant.
    
   Pek Cueiam.

Tbe principle is established tbat in arriving at a verdict it is tbe duty of tbe jury to consider and determine tbe rights of the parties by exercising tbe judgment, weighing tbe evidence, and applying tbe law to tbe facts as found in every case. It is also held tbat a verdict is invalid if it appears to be more nearly tbe result of a mathematical calculation than of an exercise of judgment based on tbe evidence. There seems to be no satisfactory or practical distinction between a case in wbicb tbe jurors agree to accept one-twelfth ’ of tbe aggregate amount of their several estimates without further deliberation and a case in wbicb they agree arbitrarily to award 30 per cent of tbe plaintiffs’ demands apparently without due regard to tbe evidence in each case. This becomes more manifest upon a consideration of tbe verdict in the light of the evidence. Castelloe v. Jenkins, 186 N. C., 166, 173; S. v. Snipes, 185 N. C., 743, 747. The ratio wbicb the acreage bears to the several demands is not uniform; the character of the crops varies; similarity in point of cultivation does not appear. The verdict was manifestly the result of a mathematical calculation not governed by the proper esercise of judgment under the fixed rules of the law. Ottowa v. Gilliland, 88 A. S. R., 232; Commonwealth v. Fisher, 134 A. S. R., 1061; Note 16 Ann. Cas., 910; Note Ann. Cas., 1917, ch. 1224.

The order setting aside the verdict is

Affirmed.  