Case ID: pen-w_2/html/0300-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NEAL against SHIELDS.
    IN ERROR.
    IVhere there is a plain mistake on the part of the referees, where fraud or imposition has been practised on them by either party, or. where there is corruption 01; misconduct among themselves, their award is open to re-examination, reduction or total rejection. I
    A mistake must be established by the prpof and facts before the referees, and not by what might possibly hkve been proved by witnesses not examined.
    ■\Vhere there is a fair and honest trial and a just decision, according to the evidence before referees, the awar|i is final and conclusive on both parties, although in trutl} injustice may have been done.
    Error to the Common Pleas of Cumberland county.
    The defendant in action of debt on an parties, who reported] the sum of error, who was plaintiff below, brought ap award of referees mutually chosen by the 15, as due to him.
    On the trial of the cause, the defendant offered to prove by several witnesses not examined before the referees, (and of whose testimony he knew nothing until after their award,) what was the original contract between Shields and himself, and how it \vas brought about, in order to establish the great injustice of the award. He further offered to show that the plaintiff acknowledged the terms of the contract with the defendant to be different from that presented to the referees, and fixed by them.
    This testimony being objected to was overruled by the Court, -$tho in their charge to the jury stated:
    <¿If there was a plain mistake on the part of the referees, or if there was fraud or imposition upon them by the plaintiff, or corruption or misconduct by themselves, either of these would open the award to re-examination and reduction, or total rejection. But you cannot judge of mistake, by what was not before the referees, but might possibly have been proved by witnesses not examined, this must be done from the proof and facts that were before them. If the same arbitrators had had other proof they would probably have decided differently: but you cannot take up the case anew, and because you may' suppose from other proof, not before the arbitrators, that injustice may have b<| n done, reduce the amount of the aware1 or totally reject it. If there -was a fair and honest trial, and a just decision, according to the evidence before, the referees, the award is final and conclusive .011 both parties, although in truth, injustice may have been done. „
    ERROR assigned.
    The Court erred in charging the jury that they were restricted to an examination of the award on the evidence before the referees, and could listen to none other even though injustice had been .done.
    The cause was argued by Alexander for the plaintiff in error,
    
      Williamson and Carothers contra.
   Judgment affirmed.