When a trial jury returns a written verdict which expresses the award of an amount different from the announced amount of verdict, the written verdict prevails. City of Birmingham v. Hawkins, 196 Ala. 127, 72 So. 25; Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179; W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Hannon, 32 Ala. App. 147, 22 So.2d 603; Alexiou v. Christu, 285 Ala. 346, 232 So.2d 595. Where a trial jury returns a written verdict announcing a certain amount but announces orally a different amount, and thereafter the jury is discharged, the court is without authority to enter judgment in either amount or to reassemble the jury after its discharge for redeliberation. St. Clair v. Caldwell Riddle, 72 Ala. 527; City of Birmingham v. Hawkins, 196 Ala. 127, 72 So. 25; W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Hannon, 32 Ala. App. 147, 22 So.2d 603; Alexiou v. Christu, 285 Ala. 346, 232 So.2d 595; Brown v. Barr, 269 Ala. 497, 113 So.2d 924; Brister v. State, 26 Ala. 107. There is a discharge of a jury, after which time it has no more ability to function in a given case, when the jury leaves the courtroom and after having been told that they are excused from the case and after discharge, it no longer has any power to redeliberate, resolve any ambiguity in a rendered verdict, or perform any other activity. Brown v. Barr, 296 Ala. 497, 113 So.2d 924; Brister v. State, 26 Ala. 107; St. Clair v.

The power of a court to amend a jury verdict after discharge of a jury is limited to matters of form or clerical errors which are apparent by record and does not extend to matter of substance required to be passed upon by the jury. Alexiou v. Christu, 285 Ala. 346, 232 So.2d 595. The judgment of the court must follow the verdict of the jury. Lonnie Russell Ford, Inc. v. Mitchell, 279 Ala. 340, 185 So.2d 132; Carr White Truck Co. v. Southern Concrete, 280 Ala. 405, 194 So.2d 561; Smith v. Stoutomire, 283 Ala. 376, 217 So.2d 242; Id. 395 U.S. 934, 23 L.Ed.2d 449, 89 S.Ct. 1996. Where a jury does not assess damages, the trial court cannot enter judgment for damages. Art. I, § 11, Constitution of Alabama, 1901; Powers v. Williams, 34 Ala. App. 579, 42 So.2d 58; W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Hannon, 32 Ala. App. 147, 22 So.2d 603. Evidence of similar fraudulent statements to others cannot be received for the purpose of making out a case of fraud, in an unconnected transaction.

The owner of personal property may testify as to its value without qualifying as an expert. Alexiou v. Christu, 285 Ala. 346, 232 So.2d 595. Where appellant makes Assignments of Error, but fails to refer to them or to discuss them in his brief, such treatment of the Assignments of Error constitute a waiver. Coffee County v. Parrish, 249 Ala. 226, 30 So.2d 578; Suits v. Glover, 260 Ala. 449, 71 So.2d 49.

A court's authority to amend a verdict after the jury has been discharged cannot extend to matters of substance that a jury must determine. Id.; Alexiou v. Christu, 285 Ala. 346, 232 So.2d 595 (1970). Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in its post-trial order.

A court's authority to amend a verdict after the jury has been discharged cannot extend to matters of substance that a jury must determine. Id.; Alexiou v. Christu, 285 Ala. 346, 232 So.2d 595 (1970). Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in its post-trial order.

”Alexiou v. Christu, 285 Ala. 346, 349, 232 So.2d 595, 597 (1970). “If the court should aid the verdict of the jury which is faulty as to substance, without the consent and concurrence of the jury, it would then become not the verdict of the jury, but of the court.”

A court's authority to amend a verdict after the jury has been discharged cannot extend to matters of substance that a jury must determine. Id.; Alexiou v. Christu, 285 Ala. 346, 232 So.2d 595 (1970). Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in its post-trial order.

The right of cross-examination, a right that was fully and freely exercised in this case, provides a sufficient safeguard against undue prejudice to the opposing party. Alexiou v. Christu, 285 Ala. 346, 232 So.2d 595 (1970); Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-114. AFFIRMED.

To recapitulate, a court's right to amend a jury verdict after discharge of the jury is limited to matters of form or clerical errors that are apparent from the record and it does not extend to matters of substance required to be passed upon by the jury. Alexiou v. Christu, 285 Ala. 346, 232 So.2d 595 (1970). However, where the language of judgments or verdicts can be reasonably interpreted by reference to the pleadings and papers in the case and the instructions of the court, then on such a basis intendments are indulged in favor of judgments.

The only authority vested in the trial Court to amend a jury verdict is limited to matters of form or clerical error and does not extend to matters of substance required to be passed upon by the jury. Alexiou v. Christu, 285 Ala. 346, 232 So.2d 595 (1970). For the rule relating to irregularity, or form of verdict, see also Alabama Power Company v. Cleckler, Ala., 323 So.2d 344 (1975).