One of the common grounds of a new trial is that the verdict is contrary to law. What law is meant,--the law as it really is, or the law that was given to the jury by the court\u27s instruction? Most cases hold to the latter view. It is the duty of the jury to take the law from the court, whether the court in so giving it is right or wrong. Hence, the jury violate their duty if they fail to follow instructions, even if the instructions are wrong, and a verdict based on a breach of the jury\u27s duty cannot be allowed to stand, even though intrinsically correct. Talley v. Whitlock, (Ala., 1917) 73 So. 976; Gartner v. Mohan, 39 S. D. 202; Yellow Poplar Lumber Co., v. Bartley, 164 Ky., 763; Soderburg v. Chicago St. P. M. \u26 0. Ry. Co, 67 Ia., 123; Freel v. Pietzsch, 22 N. D., 113; Barton v. Shull, 62 Neb., 570; Dent v. Bryce 16 S. C., I4; Murray v. Heinze, 17 Mont., 353.
展开▼
机译：一项新审判的共同根据之一是判决是违法的。法律的含义是什么-是真实的法律，还是法院的指示赋予陪审团的法律？大多数情况下坚持后一种观点。陪审团有责任从法院那里获取法律，无论法院这样做是对还是错。因此，即使指示有误，陪审团也不会遵守其职责，即使从本质上讲是正确的，基于违反陪审团职责的裁决也不能成立。 Talley诉Whitlock，（阿拉巴马州，1917年）73这样。 976； Gartner诉Mohan，第39 S. D. 202页； Yellow Poplar Lumber Co.，v。Bartley，164 Ky。，763; Soderburg诉Chicago St.P.M. \ u26 0.Ry. Co，67 Ia。，123; Freel诉Pietzsch，22 N.D.，113; Barton诉Shull，第62页，第570页； Dent诉Bryce 16 S. C.，I4;默里（Murray）诉海因策（Heinze），17蒙特，353。
展开▼
