Case ID: njl_1/html/0460-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kinsey, C. J. Pee Cue.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[401] JESSUP v. ELDRIDGE.
    If a paper relating to the cause, though of little or no moment, be given to the jury by a party, after they have begun their deliberations, without the consent of the other party, it will vitiate the verdict.
    On certiorari to Justice Tatem, of Gloucester county.
    The justice returned that the action was brought for the recovery of three years’ rent, claimed by Eldridge as due him from Jessup; as the jury were going out of the bar, the plaintiff brought the justice a paper containing the charge of the three years’ rent, and requested him to hand it to the jury, alleging that Jessup had agreed that it should go to them, and the justice, in consequence, delivered it. Some of the affidavits stated that the justice had delivered the paper to the jury after they had commenced their deliberations, and Eldridge had confessed that Jessup had not expressed his consent.
    
      Leake, for the defendant above
    1st. The return of the justice was conclusive as to the time when the paper was delivered to the jury, and he states it to have been handed them before they, retired • to consider of their verdict; if so, it was regular." \ .
    
    2d. Admitting it to have been given them after they were enclosed, and without consent, it affords no ground upon which to reverse the judgment, unless it appears' the paper contained new evidence, or influenced the decision of the jury. So far from these facts appearing, it was not disputed-.that it contained nothing more than the sum demanded for. three years’ rent, which was the only dispute between the parties, and the paper was not even communicated to the jury at large.
   Kinsey, C. J.

If the paper had been delivered to the jury at the bar without consent', it would have been error; and—

Pee Cue.

The judgment must be reversed, because it appears that this paper, although of little or no consequence, yet relating to the cause, was delivered to the jury after they had retired, and under a deception.

Judgment reversed.

Davenport, for plaintiff in certiorari.