Case ID: me_32/html/0334-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wells, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Newell versus Ayer & al.
    
    Though the conduct of a juror may, in some respect, he at variance from the requirements of the court, yet, if it do not appear that some injury to either party could have resulted from it, it is not a sufficient ground to require a new trial.
    A message was sent by the jury 'to the Judge, that they were not likely to agree upon a verdict and the officer, under direction of the Judge, opened the door and apprised the jury that they were called into court. It was then said by one of the jury that they could probably agree, and the Judge, on being notified of it, recalled the order. While the door was thus opened, two of the jurors left the room for a minute or two, and then returned, after which a verdict was agreed upon.
    For this cause, a motion was made for a new trial.
    The two jurors testified that, their absence was upon a needful occasion, and that, while absent, they had no conversation with any person.
   Wells, J.,

orally.—Where misconduct on the part of jurors has been of injury to a party, it is the duty of the court to set aside their verdict. It was misconduct in the two jurors to leave their room without permission of the court. But they held no conversation with any one, and it does not appear that any injury could have resulted from their act.

The motion is overruled.