Wright v. Laugenour
Synopsis
View op Land by a Juey.—In ejectment, the statute authorizes the court to direct the jury to he conducted to view the land in controversy; but it does not authorize them to view any other property than that which is in litigation.
View by Juey op Pbopebty in Suit as Evidence.—The jury, when directed by the court to view the land in litigation, in ejectment, cannot use the result of their examination as independent evidence in the case.
View op Land by a Juey.—An instruction to a jury sent out to view land in controversy “ that they examine the land, examine the quality of the soil, and the growth upon it,” and that “ you avoid, forming an opinion as to its quality until you have finally heard all the evidence,” does not authorize them to take into consideration the result of their own examination as independent evidence.
By the Court: Section 610 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the District Court, in certain cases, to direct the jury to be conducted to view the property in controversy. It does not authorize the view of other property than that which is in litigation, and the court below properly refused the appellant’s application.
The instruction given to the jury before they proceeded to look at the land, did not authorize them to take into con[558]sideration—when they should retire to the jury-room—the result of their own examinations of the land, as independent evidence in the cause. In this respect the instruction differed from the charge of the court, held erroneous at the former appeal.
Judgment affirmed,
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)