This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1844 edition. Excerpt: ...saying that, as the parties, by the terms of the cognovit, had agreed to constitute the prothonotary their arbitrator, they must be bound by his decision, (a) If a judge, on his own authority, discharge a jury where jury _.., . discharged by trom giving a verdict, on the ground of their not the judge, 00 no costs being able to agree, the party ultimately successful allowed, is not entitled to the costs of the first attempt at trial. Upon the trial of a cause, the jury having been out all night and not agreeing, the judge in the morning discharged them of his own authority; afterwards the cause was tried, and the plaintiff suc-ceeded: the Master, upon the taxation of the costs, rejected those of the first trial. In the case of withdrawing a juror by agreement, or the discharge of the jury by the judge, in either case it is done be-cause the jury cannot agree. The case of a remanet?f""met is different, there being no reason to suppose the jury would disagree. The case of Harrison v. Bennett, 1 Dowl. 627. might be distinguished; there was no fault on either side, nor any thing with which the Court was dissatisfied, but a mere accident in the cause, by which the attempt at trial was rendered abortive. It was therefore held that it must follow the same practice as if a juror had been withdrawn, and that each party must pay his own costs of the first attempt at trial, (b) (a) Elvinv. Drmnmond, 1 M. & P. 88.; 4 Bing. 415. (6) Seelty v. Poweri, 3 Dowl. 372.; Waite v. Spurgin, 4 Where a Where a juror is withdrawn, and the case referred, juror with-' drawn, and Dut no award made, and the cause being set down cause referred andrau."ard' again, the plaintiff succeeds, he is not entitled to MedTcosts the costs of the first...