Case ID: iowa_26/html/0486-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cole, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thompson v. Perkins.
    1. Verdict and jury: determination op verdict by lot. Where a jury, after their retirement, agree to determine their verdict by lot, and, in advance of the drawing, agree to be bound by the result, a verdict thus obtained is invalid and should be set aside.
    2. -Nor will the verdict in such ease be validated by the fact, that after the drawing the jury took a vote as to their verdict, and that all voted for the party in whose favor the drawing had resulted, when it is shown that this vote was but a declaration of the willingness of the jurors to stand by the result of the lot.
    3. -repudiation op illeoal verdiot. While, it is competent for a jury to repudiate a verdict obtained by lot or otherwise illegally, and find a valid one upon due and candid deliberation, such repudiation and subsequent proper finding should be clearly and satisfactorily shown.
    
      Appeal from Wapello District Court.
    
    Saturday, January 30.
    Action for trespass; trial to a jury. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff for one dollar and costs. The defendant appeals.
    
      
      H. H. Trimble for the appellant.
    
      Hendershott <& Burton for the appellee.
   Cole, J.

After the verdict was returned into court and the jury discharged, the defendant filed his motion for a new trial, on the ground of the miseonduct of the jury. He filed in support -of his . „ ,. . , motion the affidavits of five jurors, showing that the jurors having disagreed for a considerable time after their retirement, part being for plaintiff and part for defendant, agreed to determine their verdict by lot, and in advance of the drawing, agreed to be bound by the result. They did thus determine their verdict, and the lot fell upon plaintiff. The plaintiff also filed the affidavits of four jurors, showing,that the verdict was obtained by lot, but also showing that after the lot fell on plaintiff,- the jury took another vote as to their verdict and all voted for plaintiff, and this verdict, by vote, was the one returned. The affidavit of another juror, filed by defendant, shows that this vote was but a declaration of the willingness of the jurors to’ stand by the result of the lot.

That it is-competent for a jury, having determined their verdict by lot or otherwise illegally, to retrace their steps, repudiate such illegal conduct and ver- ,. , , , diet, and find a valid one upon due and candid deliberation, we have no doubt. But having found -such illegal verdiet, the evidence of its repudiation and the subsequent proper finding of a sufficient verdict should be very clear and satisfactory. It is not so in this casé; . but on the contrary, the affidavits, when taken altogether and fairly construed, show a verdict by lot, and that the subsequent vote was but a ratification of the lot. The verdict should have been set aside.

Reversed.