...applying to count No. 2 apply also to this one. and the question of liability under the contract was one of fact for the jury, and not of law for the court. As to count No. 4. This raises a different question than that in counts 2, 3, 5 and 6. It is a claim...

...the manner of constructing it ; and if there had been any dispute on this subject, it would have been matter of fact for the jury, and not of law for the decision of the Court. The plaintiff, in his specification, after describing his Hopperboy, its structure,...

...the manner of constructing it ; and if there had been any dispute on this subject, it would have been matter of fact for the jury, and not of law for the decision of the Court. The plaintiff, in his specification, after describing his Hopperboy, its structure,...

...ratification of the acts of Edwards fy Stewart. Whether Donnell did, or did not consent to them was a question of fact for the jury, and not of law, for the court. And if he did acquiesce in them after notice, and the jury had so found, then in point of law it ratified...

...impeach the finding on another count, however contradictory. R. v. Craddack, 31 — — It is a question of fact for the jury, and not of law for the Court, whether two names are idem tonantia, unless they must necessarily sound the same. R. v. Davit, 207...

...them. Others make small and comparatively unimportant words too prominent ; thus , " This is a question of fact for the jury, and not of law for the court, and if the court resume the responsibility of deciding this question, which belongs to the jury and...

...them. Others make small and comparatively unimportant words too prominent; thus, " This is a question of fact for the jury, and not of law for the court, and if the court assume the responsibility o/"deciding this question, which belongs to the jury and...

...and the prosecutor in evidence stated that his name was Trius C. : — Held, that it was a question of fact for the jury, and not of law for the court, whether the two words were idem sonanlia. Regina v. Davis, 564. 3. Mistake in Impanelling.] Sce NEW...

...in the line of official duty. (2.) Whether paid into the Treasury of the State or not was a question of fact for the jury, and not of law for the Court ; and the Court erred in regarding it as a question of law alone, and charging upon it as such. 6....

...whether the plaintiff was justified in assuming that the car had stopped for her to alight was one of fact for the jury, and not of law for the court. This presents the sole question for determination. The ordinance requires that cars shall be stopped...