cogan agl ebden KB a verdict have be deliver in for the defendant general by  mistake of the foreman when the jury have find on one issue for the plaintiff  and on the other only for the defendant on motion for a new trial c leave give  to move to amend the postea on the affidavit of the jury c I burr S c this be  a action of trespass wherein two issue be join to try the right to two private  ays on the trial the jury have agree to find for the plaintiff as to one issue  and for the defendant on the other but when they be ask general who they find  for the foreman by mistake answer for the defendant without distinguish the  issue Mr baron leg who try the cause report that as to the dispute issue there  be evidence on both side but he think the weight of evidence be against the  verdict Kenyon upon the foundation therefore of his report and upon the  affidavit of eight of the juror state the mistake of the foreman as above a  new trial be now apply for the foreman have decline make any affidavit because  be say it will make he look like a fool in westminsterhall but he admit there  have be a mistake and as to the other three juryman it do not appear that they  have be apply to on either side Lord Mansfield CJ this case differ great from  that of a jury change their mind after the time of the trial it seem to have  be a clear mistake and to have be owe to the want of sufficient explain the  matter to they when they bring in their verdict the jury as appear by the  affidavit have agree to find as to one road for the defendant and as to the  other for the plaintiff so that what the foreman say that they find for the  defendant be true but the associate shall have ask they distinct on each issue  it appear also that the jury find out their mistake within a hour after the  verdict be give it be clear how the merit of the case be and if it be a clear  mistake it be incumbent on the court to set it right accord to the justice of  the case the judge here be of opinion with the plaintiff all the juror who  have swear acknowledge the mistake I do not think it be a wilful blunder in  the foreman but it seem to have happen through hurry there be no universal  rule of grant new trial except it be do that which will best get at the truth  of the case Kenyon the real justice of the case here will be to rectify the  mistake in the verdict which may be do if there be any memorandum of the judge  that he take the verdict to be for the plaintiff but if that can be refer to  yet I think there must be a new trial denison I the only point be whether we  can rectify this postea which must be do if we can for the question have be  try and a verdict find and as to that Kenyon er p there be many instance of  rectify the postea by the judge note I remember such a amendment by my brother  Burnetts note a therefore I shall think it right to have recourse again to my  brother leg to know if he have any note to amend by foster I I do not see what  further information we can expect by another application to the judge who try  the cause for it be agree on all hand that the jury do deliver in their  verdict on both issue for the defendant so that the associate do not mistake  they but they be mistake the case my brother Denison mention be I believe a  mistake in the associate who do not take verdict as deliver in here indeed  there be a plain mistake so that I think there shall be a new trial but I  shall be afraid of amend this postea for fear of the precedent I do not know  where we shall stop Mr Hussey then say that though his client succeed and have  a new trial yet as one issue must be find against Kenyon he he must again pay  cost though he shall succeed on this point at the trial whereupon the rule be  enlarge for two or three day to consider what to do a few day afterward this  matter be again mention by Lord man sfield CJ upon search I find a case which  Iucite for the precedent it establish it be Mayo v archer I Str where the  special verdict be rectify by affidavit there be another case also in support  of this principle Darrell v bridge Trin Geo which be trespass for cut down a  oak tree several issue be join one on the nonguilty another issue be whether  the place where c be parcel of a certain manor it appear in evidence that the  tree grow on the defendant own ground so that he be right on the not guilty  issue but a verdict be give general on all the issue for the defendant though  there be not a title of proof as to the place be within or not within the  manor upon bich a application be make to this court to expunge the verdict as  to all but the not guilty issue because the other part of the verdi will  otherwise be evidence against the plaintiff as to the boundary of his manor  and the judge report that no evidence be give as to the other issue the  verdict as to they be expunge accord he therefore recommend it to Mr Morton  and Mr Hussey counsel for the plaintiff to move upon the foundation of the  affidavit and the judge report for a rule to make the Kenyon postea agreeable  to the intention of the jury which Mr Morton accord do and obtain a rule to  show cause