WPC  & 2+*>݀ruzδٵ(6yjrM4U[Nk?DzxSq|;C:]:bbZCȒx%5uI %˅e)R4.Y];SkW˒Cr q[@=a㫰\[ǫwcG@Y!SԬ^KEB;bk!AZ<<?|3OA T^d.&65H /<Q6 s"!eL{x(iz{)lN^2R%ol^x^cX7mdpwY[cl64?1+ m൧"}y˜n J8@0I/qYԛw_P$[/B=Y7J#< xgPITXa1C^`@ec^$ Dxo|2zc&O)՝ӆĺU?$m A4F Z 0(i  w@  UN U:                 UBP % B D3 0D AO, { { 0DA D/ B w#%3|x($ DDD P Ӏ X0XXXZmXX0 Ad   FILEDǟZm   November24,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  ݛ  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7X`XXXXX`Ԁ@j j  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  Мl*6&"h 8 `E tt06H l HH(#(# 4    <      D   @ ATKNOXVILLE CITYOFCHATTANOOGA,    )C/ANO.03A019803   CV00105 4    <     ) (#(#HH 4 PetitionerAppellee, <     )HAMILTONCIRCUIT   4    <     )v. 4    <     )HON.ROBERTM.SUMMITT,    4    <     )JUDGEJ.KENNETHANDALIESEHUTSELL,) 4    <     )AFFIRMEDAND 4 RespondentsAppellants.    )REMANDED  DOUGLASM.COX,CityAttorneysOffice,Chattanooga,forPetitionerAppellee.CATHERINEM.WHITE,Chattanooga,forRespondentsAppellants.@% OPINION  #  4    <      D   Franks,J. 4  Inthiscondemnationaction,theissueonappealiswhethertheTrialJudgeabusedhisdiscretioninrefusingtherequestoflandownersattorneythattheexhibitsinevidencebesuppliedtothejuryduringitsdeliberation. 4  Asweunderstandappellantsargument,thejudgesrefusalamountedtoanabuseofdiscretion,becauseafterthejuryreturneditsverdictof$130,000.00,theCourtinvitedquestionsandthejuryforemansaid, Iwascurious.Whyarentalltheitemsthatareputintoevidenceautomaticallybroughtintothejuryroom?TheJudgegaveageneralanswerwithoutanyspecificitytothiscase. 4  Appellantfurtherarguesthatthisjury splitthedifferencebetweenthetwoappraisals,andsinceitdidnothavetheexhibits wasatalossastoreallywhatto ;34 dowithouttheappraisalstolookat,sotheyjustsplitthedifferencebetweenthetwoappraisals. 4  TennesseeCodeAnnotated209510statesthatthe TrialJudgeincivilcases,may,intheJudgesdiscretion,onmotionofeitherparty,upontheJudgesownmotion,oronrequestbythejury,submitallexhibitsadmittedinevidencetothejuryforthejurysconsiderationduringdeliberationsonthejurysverdict. Thisstatutedoesnotimposeuponatrialjudgeinacivilcasetheabsolutedutyofsubmittingtheexhibitstothejuryduringdeliberation.Rather,thematterisdiscretionarywiththeTrialJudge.Fletcherv.CoffeeCountyFarmersCoOp,618  S.W.2d490,495(Tenn.App.1981).TheCourtnotedinFletcher,thatsubmitting  writtenevidencetothejurymaygiveonepartyan unfairadvantageovertheother,becausethejuryislikelytogivethewritingsmore probativeforcethanitsrecollectionoftheoraltestimony.AccordNewsomv.Markus,588S.W.2d883,888  (Tenn.App.1979). 4  Wefindnoevidenceofabuseofdiscretionontherecordbeforeus.,andtThegroundsallegedbytheappellantsdonotestablishabasistosetasidethejudgment.Aftertheverdictandpollingofthejury,theTrialJudgeaskedthejurorsiftheyhadanyquestionsaboutprocedure, notaboutthiscaseinparticular,butaboutanythingaboutyourcourthousesthatyouwouldliketoaskabout.Thequestionbythejuryforemaninnowaydemonstratesthatthejurydidnotcorrectlyproperlyperformitsfunction. 4  TheamountofjustcompensationisaquestionoffactforthejurytoϜdetermine.,Shook&FletcherSupplyCo.V.CityofNashville,47Tenn.App.339,338 1** S.W.2d237,238,243(1960),andweonlysetasideajuryverdictifthereisnomaterialevidencetosupport.T.R.A.P.Rule13(d).Inthiscase,thejuryunanimouslyagreedtothe$130,000.00verdictwhichtheTrialJudgeapproved.Theappellantsappraisertestifiedthepropertywasworth$224,000.00,andtheCitysappraiser 922 testifiedthepropertywasworth$40,950.00.Thereisnoevidenceofjurymisconductinthiscase,andtheverdictiswithintherangeofreasonableness. 4  AccordinglyweaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremandwiththecostofappealassessedtoappellant.@+ D  <4   4    <     __________________________ @8  4    <     HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________DonT.McMurray,J.___________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.