1. ENTRIES OF RECORD-of the impaneling of a jury-presumption where no exception is taken. Where it appears from the record of a cause, that there was a jury on the trial below, and that they were duly sworn, in the absence of any exception to the mode in which they were tried, selected and sworn, it will be presumed that it was done according to law. 2. PRESUMPTION in favor of the regularity of proceedings. Nothing appearing to the contrary, it will be presumed that courts of general jurisdiction perform their duty and try causes according to the due course of law. 3. JUDGMENT-its requisites-presumption in regard to its sufficiency. Upon a verdict for the plaintiff in an action on the case, for three thousand dollars damages, this entry was made: "Judgment entered upon the verdict for $3000, and costs." Held, not to be a sufficient entry of a judgment. 4. It cannot be presumed that a judgment has been regularly entered merely because a suit has been instituted, or because a jury has found a verdict in the case, or because the clerk may make such a recital as the above. 5. REMANDING A CAUSE—whether a new trial must be had. In a case where no error had intervened prior to the verdict in the cause, which was sufficient to sustain a judgment but no sufficient judgment was entered, the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded with leave to the party to move in the court below for a judgment on the verdict, it being deemed unnecessary to award a venire facias de novo. 39 9 159 454 39 9 163 41 39 9 165 611 39 9 e183 177 184 84 39 9 103a 4579 Statement of the case. Brief for the Plaintiff in error. WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Franklin county; the Hon. A. D. DUFF, Judge, presiding. This was an action of trespass on the case commenced in the court below, by Jacob Barnhardt against Oliver C. Martin. An issue was formed, and the cause came on for trial at the August Term, 1865. One of the questions arising under the assignment of errors is, whether it sufficiently appears from the record that the jury who tried the cause were regularly selected, impaneled and sworn. The opinion of the court discloses, substantially, what is shown by the record in that regard. The evidence having been closed, the following verdict was returned: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty, and assess the plaintiff's damages at three thousand dollars." The entry supposed to have been intended as a judgment, and the sufficiency of which is brought in question, is as follows a motion for a new trial having been made: "Which said motion is overruled, and judgment entered upon the verdict for $3,000 and costs, to which the defendant excepts, and prays an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is granted upon his filing bond with Henry Hays, Wm. S. Crawford, or either of them, within thirty days, in the sum of five thousand dollars; and bill of exceptions allowed to be signed in vacation, on or before the 23d day of September next. 2d S." Messrs. TANNER & CASEY and Messrs. MULKEY, WALL and WHEELER, for the plaintiff in error. The record does not show that the jury on the trial in the court below were impaneled, tried, elected and sworn to try the issue joined in this cause according to the evidence. 2 Bl. Com. 281. The judgment in an action of this character should be for damages. 2 Stephens' Nisi Prius, 1025; 1 Chitty's Pl. 145. The authorities on this point are uniform. Brief for the Defendant in error. The record in this case does not show any sufficient judgment. A judgment is not so much the decision of the court as the sentence of the law pronounced by the court after due deliberation and inquiry. To be valid, a judicial judgment must be given by a competent judge or court at a time and place appointed by law and in the form it requires. 2 Bouvier's Inst. 523; Stephen's Pl. 105; Bl. Com. 306. The declaration in this case claims damages. The judgment, if there is any, is for three thousand dollars; whether that amount is for a debt or damages does not appear. The judgment must follow the declaration. 1 Scam. 240. Where the verdict and judgment are too general the judgment will be reversed. Knox et al. v. Breed, 12 Ill. 60; Austin Adam, etc. v. The People, etc. 11 id. 452; Hinkly v. West, 4 Gilm. 136; Lyon v. Barney, 1 Scam. 387. The record does not show whether it is in debt or damages, neither does it show whether it is in favor of plaintiff or defendant. Messrs. ALLEN & WEBB, Mr. F. M. YOUNGBLOOD and Mr. S. E. FLANNEGAN, for the defendant in error. The record does show that the jury was "duly sworn according to law," and this court will presume that the oath required by law was regularly and formally administered, especially when the record shows no exceptions on the part of the plaintiff in error to any of the jurors, or to the manner or form in which they were sworn. The judgment was informal but not void. The record shows that the motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment on verdict for three thousand dollars. The objection to the form of the judgment is technical and not substantial. This court can clearly ascertain, from data furnished by the record, what judgment ought to have been rendered in the court below, and will enter that judgment here, without reversing the case. Prince v. Lamb, Breese, 378; Wilmans v. Bank of Illinois, 1 Gilm. 667. |