Proceed ings in case a juror becomes sick. When prevented verdict, the cause may be again tried. 615. (§ 164.) If, after the impaneling of the jury, and before verdict, a juror become sick, so as to be unable to perform his duty, the Court may order him to be discharged. In that case the trial may proceed with the other jurors, or another juror may be sworn and the trial begin anew; or the jury may be discharged, and a new jury then or afterwards impaneled. 616. (§ 169.) In all cases where the jury are disfrom giving charged, or prevented from giving a verdict, by reason of accident or other cause, during the progress of the trial, or after the cause is submitted to them, the action may be again tried immediately, or at a future time, as the Court may direct. While jury are absent, adjourn from time to time. 617. (§ 170.) While the jury are absent the Court may Court may adjourn from time to time, in respect to other business; but it is nevertheless open for every purpose connected with the cause submitted to the jury, until a verdict is rendered or the jury discharged. The Court may direct the jury to bring in a sealed verdict, at the opening of the Court, in case of an agreement during a recess or adjournment for the day. A final adjournment of the Court for the term discharges the jury. Sealed verdict. Final adjournment discharges the jury. NOTE.-When a jury are instructed to bring in a sealed verdict, and after agreeing upon the verdict they seal it up and give it to the officer in charge of themthe Clerk being absent-and request him to give it to the Clerk, which is done, and after the meeting of the Court the following morning the verdict is opened in the presence of the jury and read by the Clerk, without exception, it is not an error sufficient to warrant a new trial. The possession by such officer left the verdict as much in the possession of the Court itself as if it had been directly delivered to the Clerk. Nor will it make any difference when the names of the jurors were not called, and they were not asked whether they had agreed upon their verdict, where the parties were present, and took no exception at the time; and where it is not pretended that the verdict entered differs from the one sealed up, or that the result is in any respect affected by the omission. The opportunities of tam- how 618. (§ 171.) When the jury have agreed upon Verdict, their verdict, they must be conducted into Court, their declared. names called by the Clerk, and the verdict rendered by their foreman. The verdict must be in writing, Form of. signed by the foreman, and must be read by the Clerk to the jury, and the inquiry made whether it is their verdict. If any juror disagrees, they must be sent out again; but if no disagreement be expressed, and neither party requires the jury to be polled, the verdict is complete and the jury discharged from the case. jury. Either party may require the jury to be polled, Polling the which is done by the Court or Clerk asking each juror if it is his verdict. If any one answer in the negative, the jury must again be sent out. NOTE.-Under Sec. 171 of the Practice Act of 1851, there was no absolute right to poll the jury in a civil case.-Blum vs. Pate, 20 Cal., p. 69. ings when verdict is informal. 619. ($ 172.) When the verdict is announced, if Proceedit is informal or insufficient, in not covering the issue submitted, it may be corrected by the jury under the advice of the Court, or the jury may be again sent out. NOTE.-If the verdict is informal the Court ought to explain the defects to the jury, and direct them to put it in proper form.-People vs. Dick, 34 Cal., p. 666. The Court may instruct the jury to amend their verdict as to matters of form, not affecting the substance, and in such manner as to be unexceptionable in law. Truebody vs. Jacobson, 2 Cal., p. 284. Or the Court may amend the verdict when it is defective in something merely formal, and which has no connection with the merits of the cause, if the amendment in no respect changes the rights of the parties.-Perkins vs. Wilson, Cal., p. 139. But if the Court, instead of having the verdict corrected by the jury, attempt to correct it by the judgment, and go beyond the verdict. it is error.-Ross vs. Austill, 2 Cal., p. 192. A general objection to the form of a verdict, without any specification of the particulars, will not be considered.-Mahoney vs. Van Winkle, 21 Cal., p. 552. If a verdict returned by a jury is not sufficiently definite and certain to serve as a basis for a judgment, and the party against whom it is rendered consents that a certain construction thereof should be taken as the verdict, this proceeding is quite as irregular, uncertain, and ineffectual as the verdict itself.-Campbell vs. Jones, 38 Cal., p. 509. ARTICLE III. General and special verdicts defined. THE VERDICT. SECTION 624. General and special verdicts defined. 625. When a general or special verdict may be rendered. 626. Verdict in actions for recovery of money or on estab lishing counter claim. 627. Verdict in actions for the recovery of specific personal property. 628. Entry of verdict. 624. (§ 174.) The verdict of a jury is either general or special. A general verdict is that by which they pronounce generally upon all or any of the issues, either in favor of the plaintiff or defendant; a special verdict is that by which the jury find the facts only, leaving the judgment to the Court. The special verdict must present the conclusions of fact as established by the evidence, and not the evidence to prove them; and those conclusions of fact must be so presented as that nothing shall remain to the Court but to draw from them conclusions of law. NOTE.-1. GENERALLY.-The verdict must be confined to the issues.-Benedict vs. Bray, 2 Cal., p. 256; Truebody vs. Jacobson, id., p. 285. If the Court, instead of having the verdict corrected by the jury, attempt to correct it by the judgment, and go beyond the verdict, it is error.- Ross vs. Austill, 2 Cal., p. 192. The verdict of a jury is a record, and copies thereof may be sufficiently authenticated by the certificate of the Clerk.-Reynolds vs. Harris, 8 Cal., p. 618. A joint verdict against the defendants answering, and a defendant in default, is conclusive against all the defendants, when a separate verdict has not been demanded.-Anderson vs. Parker, 6 Cal., p. 197. A stipulation that a verdict may be entered in favor of the defendant, saving to the plaintiff the rights which he would have had in case a jury had rendered a verdict for the defendant, is to be regarded in the same light as a verdict, and is followed by the same legal results. Sunol vs. Hepburn, 1 Cal., p. 258. The Court requested counsel to prepare for the jury blank forms of the verdict, and the plaintiff's counsel prepared and the defendant's counsel assented to two forms, one of which was: "We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, and that the value of the property was $;" and the other: "We, the jury, find for the defendant." And it was agreed in open Court that the verdict should be in accordance with one of those forms. The stipulation, and the assent to those forms for the verdict, make it manifest that the respective parties desired and expected a general verdict for the whole property in controversy, and negatives the idea that either party then claimed that his right to any parcel of the property was of a different character, or rested upon any different basis from that asserted to all the property. After an adverse verdict, rendered under those circumstances, it is too late for the plaintiff to insist on a verdict in another form, or to assert a right to a portion of the property upon principles not applicable alike to all the property.-Sexey vs. Adkison, 40 Cal., p. 418. The Court may impose, as a condition of permitting a verdict to stand in other respects, the remission of damages in cases where there was no evidence on the subject of damages, or where the evidence was entirely insufficient, or where the Court differs from the jury as to the effect of the evidence. But where the verdict for the damages was based entirely upon an admission by the record, it must stand. The admission, if good for anything, is good for the entire amount specified.— Patterson vs. Ely, 19 Cal., p. 28. 2. GENERAL VERDICT.-A general verdict, rendered and received without objection, either by the Court or the parties, is good, notwithstanding the failure of the jury to find upon certain special questions submitted to them by the Court.-Moss vs. Priest, 1 Rob., p. 632; 19 Abb., p. 314. A general verdict concludes all parties who do not answer separately or demand separate verdicts.-Winans vs. Christy, 4 Cal., p. 70; Ellis vs. Jeans, 7 id., p. 409. The plaintiff in ejectment may sue one or more defendants, and they may answer separately, or demand separate verdicts; unless they do so they will be bound by a general verdict.-Winans vs. Christy, 4 Cal., p. 70. In ejectment, the defendants being in possession, the verdict may be joint against several defendants, without specifying their respective lots in a whole tract, where they file a joint answer, which contains no averment as to the particular portion of land occupied by each, no proof being offered on the point, no damages being claimed.- McGarvey vs. Little, 15 Cal., p. 31. A joint verdict against the defendants answering and a defaulting defendant, is binding against all the defendants, when a separate verdict has not been demanded.-Anderson vs. Parker, 6 Cal. p. 197; Ellis vs. Jeans, 7 Cal., p. 409. In action to recover real property the jury rendered the following verdict: "We, the jury in this cause, find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against defendants, for the possession of the premises described in the complaint herein, and the sum of one hundred and sixty-five dollars damages." This was held a general verdict, covering all the issues, and that it does not limit the finding to any particular fact or single issue.-Hutton vs. Reed, 25 Cal., p. 491; see Leese vs. Clark, 28 Cal., p. 26. Where the jury rendered “a verdict in favor of plaintiffs, with one dollar damages," it was held: that the verdict decided the question of title in favor of plaintiffs, and that upon it they were entitled to a decree perpetually enjoining defendants from working upon the ground claimed in the complaint; that this equitable relief was a matter of right, the denial of which by the District Court was error.-McLaughlin vs. Kelly, 22 Cal., p. 211. 3. SPECIAL VERDICT.-A special verdict should find "facts," and not the "evidence of facts." The verdict should leave nothing for the Court to determine save questions of law.-Langley vs. Warner, 3 N. Y., p. 327; Sisson vs. Barrett, 2 N. Y., p. 406; Hill vs. Covill, 1 N. Y., p. 522; Williams vs. Willis, 7 Abb., p. 90. It should state all the facts.-Eisemann vs. Swan, 6 Bosw., p. 669. Not admitted by the pleadings.-Barto vs. Himrod, 8 N. Y., p. 483; Williams vs. Jackson, 5 Johns., p. 489. The facts must be found expressly and specially, and not generally or impliedly.-Breeze vs. Doyle, 19 Cal., p. 101. Where special issues are submitted, they should include all questions of fact raised by the pleadings and necessary to determine the case, and should be separately and distinctly stated.Phoenix Water Co. vs. Fletcher, 23 Cal., p. 482. In |