Case ID: mass_25/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Timothy Ferrill, Petitioner, &c. versus Jonathan Simpson.
    On a petition for a review in this case, which was a writ ol entry, notice was ordered to be served on the demandant’s attorney of record. The demandant was only a nominal party, and the parties in interest (three in number) were present when the order was passed. Such notice being now objected to, the Court said that as no particular mode of notice was prescribed in the statute respecting reviews, if the party interested had substantial notice, they saw no reason why he should 'not answer.
    Upon the hearing of the petition, the counsel for the demandant produced one of the jurors to testify that a misapprehension at the trial, in regard to a certain line, had no influence upon the verdict; and to show that such evidence was admissible, they cited Ex parte Caykendoll, 6 Cowen, 53; The People v. Columbia C. P. 1 Wendell, 297.
   The Court said that as the petition was addressed to tne discretion of the Court, the evidence might be admitted The juror was accordingly examined. 
      
       See Hix v. Drury, 5 Pick. (2d edit.) 301, note 1; Dorr v. Fenno, 12 Pick 526; Parrott v. Thatcher, 9 Pick. 426