Case ID: yeates_1/html/0366-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*The President, Managers and Company of the Schuylkill and Susquehanna Navigation against Michael Diffebach. Same against John Sharpe. Same against Nicholas App. Same against Christian Walbourn. Same against Michael Kreutzer. Same against Michael Haak. Same against Valentine Miller. Same against John Myer. Same against John Kuster.
    Court will not set aside inquisitions on writs in the nature of writs ad quod damn um, issued under the act of 29th September 1791, on 'the ground that the owners of the lands had not been offered terms of agreement by the Canal Company, when it appears that they combined in a body against the work itself; attended the striking of the jury, shewed their lines to the jury, and made preparations for their coming.
    WRITS, in the nature of writs ad quod damnum, had issued between the said several parties, under the act of assembly passed 29th September 1781, enabling the governor to incorporate the plaintiffs into a company.
    Inquisitions had been executed, valuing the damages done to the several defendants, and were returned.
    Affidavits of the defendants were read, shewing that the plaintiffs had not offered to contract and agree with them for the purchase of such of the lands as should be necessary for the canal and locks; and on this ground it was moved that the inquisitions should be set aside, under the 6th section of the act, the plaintiffs not having pursued the steps pointed out by the act.
    Whereupon, William Moore, esq. offered himself as a witness for the plaintiffs, but was objected to on the point of interest, as being a stockholder of the company; but the court ruled that he might well give testimony to them to inform their consciences as to a collateral fact, and there is a line of distinction drawn between such evidence and that given to a jury. Vid. 2 Vern. 98, 337, 625. So one convicted of perjury may make an affidavit respecting the irregularity of a judgment, on a motion to set it aside. 2 Salk. 461. 2 Haw. 433. Vide 2 Stra. 1148.
    He was sworn accordingly, and proved that all the several defendants except John Myer, attended at Rebanon, in pursuance of á notice given to them to strike a jury, and after some time agreed that the sheriff should strike for them; that Diffebach spoke, and the other defendants assented to what he said; and that each of the defendants prepared provisions for the sheriff and jury, and shewed their lines, as their respective premises were viewed and examined by the jury.
    In addition hereto, William Weston, esq. was sworn and *8681 * proved, that the aforesaid John Myer had often de-dared in his hearing, that the canal should never pass through his lands; and that there was a general combination of the^ defendants against the work itself, which he superintended as engineer.
   By the court.

It would be to little purpose to offer terms of agreement respecting the lands, to persons combined in a body against the work itself. To what end should Myer be applied to, who has often said the canal should not go through his lands, unless to experience insult? The other defendants by striking the jury, and all of them by shewing their lines and making preparations for the coming of the jury, evidently shewed, that they evaded any-other terms than those which a jury should make; and they by their conduct have waved and relinquished their claim to any overtures on the part of the plaintiffs, respecting an agreement for the property.

Mr. W. M. Smith, pro quer.

Messrs. Montgomery and J. B. M’Kean, pro def.

There is no objection made, to what the jury have done on the ground of substantial injustice, and the exception taken appears captious; wherefore, let the inquisitions' be confirmed, and judgments entered thereon, agreeably to the law, unless other cause be shewn.