"Your Honors, in the Court below I was in error when I persuaded the learned trial Judge to rule that it was a correct interpretation of the law to allow me to personally enter the jury room and deliver the exhibits which the jurors asked for, and to give them an ex parte explanation of each exhibit. I might say in mitigation that I have found a Texas case, directly in point, which supports the procedure I followed, however, I am not asking your Honors to follow that Texas case, although the trial judge was impressed with its reasonableness. After due reflection I confess that this was error. It was harmless error, but it was error."

During oral argument the attorney for the plaintiff, in response to a question from the Court, stated with commendable candor, that it was error for the trial court to allow plaintiff’s attorney to personally deliver the exhibits to the jury. It is indeed unfortunate that the trial Judge permitted this to happen and also permitted the plaintiff’s attorney to discuss with jury these exhibits outside the presence of opposing counsel and the Court. It might be added that the trial judge was persuaded to allow this procedure to occur after reading the persuasive language in the Texas case cited in the footnote. Although the Court does not approve of the procedure. It does affirm the jury’s verdict because the error was not prejudicial. This view is reinforced by the fact that the plaintiff’s attorney, again with commendable candor, state that he merely repeated to the jury his closing argument. Since the jury heard it once it certainly could not be harmed by hearing it again. The plaintiff’s attorney also promised, with his usual commendable candor, that he would not do this again nor would he cite the persuasive Texas case to any other trial court.