Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-02-05
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME
C0IRT.
Nashville. December Term, 1866.
Reported for the Union and Dispatch. by Liuds-
lev A Reid

striking the name OF attorney. HulitN
of the same from the roll of attorneys.
7'rner IN error, ~. 81. John.
In this cause there was a verdict and
Judgment in the court below, in favor Of
the defendant in error
The plaintiff in error moved for a new
trial, which was overruled, and hc has APP
pealed 10 this court.
u IL now insisted that the Circuit Judge
erred ia overriding the motion for a new
trial.
Ia support Of this motion, the plaintiff in
error offered the afidavits Of A. r. Hipp,
H. G. Hays, and T. J. Spurlocll
Hipp states, in substance, that one morn
INK, before sunrise, during the sitting of
the court and after the jury had been en-
panneled, and portion OF the witnesses for
the plaintiff had been examined in this
cause on the evening before he heard one
of the plaintiffs attorneys taking very
loud about the eanse, in the presence Of
two or three of the jury trying the same ;
when, among other things, be said "lf
the jury trying the cause had a
id BIZ Of good horse sense. Just
at this point some one spoke, say
ing "you had better hush, some Of the
Jury are present. 10 which the attorney re-
piled at makes no difference, your cause
Il now won" About this time the defend
ant made his appearance and said, Gen
temen, before ! would express myself justi-
fably, in the presence Of the jury, ! would
lose my suit"
HAYS states Ia substance, that on the same
occasion, he was at a grocery, said attorney
was out in the street, near the grocery,
III II Il =.
thiscause, and soon came into the grocery and
continued talking about the case, when some
one said TO him, ''you are doing injustice
there are two jurors in the house" 10 which
the attorney replied, 81 ask pardon | will
say no more. l had not noticed it," One OF
the Jurors then said, III makes no difference,
the case is won any way
Spurlock states in substance, that on the
same morning, before sun up, while walking
the street, some distance from.the grocery,
he heard said attorney talking very
loud, Is il he was making a speech, in the
street near the grocery. Afiiant and the at
torney went into the grocery, after which
the attorney continued talking very loud
about this cause, when some one told him,
some Of the jurors were present, and he
ought not 10 talk that way, that il was
wrong'-to which he replied Gentlemen
beg your pardon" Some one then said, 'it
makes no difference, your salt is won over
Il il insisted this was such a tampering
with the jurors, by the attorney Of the
plaintiff below, ~ would authorize the
court 10 set aside the verdict and grant q
new trial. The conduct of the attorney, as
shown by these aiidavits, was certainly most
Il. Il
and for which, il may have been the duty
Of the court 10 have stricken his name from
the roll Of attorneys. Yet, we do not think
il was such a ta.npering with the jurors as
would authorize this court 60 grant a
new trial, after the Circuit Judge,
who had heard the whole case, had
refused 20 do 80. The conversations,
as il seems, were in a public place, and
portion Of them, at least, in the presence
Of the defendant, in grocery, place, how
ever. which seems 90 rs should have been
the last 10 have been selected by member
Of the legal profession in which 30 discuss
his lawsuits, and on being reminded by
some Of the by-standers that some Of the
jurors were present, and he was doing
wrong, he Immediately desisted from all
further conversation upon the subject, from
which we infer the attorney was not 80 far
forpetiul Of the rules of propriety by which
practising attorneys should be governed, OF
The duties which he owed 60 himself the
itigants, the profession, the courts aud the
country, "a wilGlly and corrupuy 20 at
tempt 10 tamper with jurors, or Thus to IN
fuence their verdict,
Il has been said, in argument that
no precedent is 20 be found, bearing
directly upon the question involved
in this case. III none is 20 be found
IL Is a fact highly Creditable 20 the
profession. and il is 20 be hoped that neither
this nor any other court will ever find
itself under the necessity Of making a pre-
cedent in a case where an attorney of IN,
court has been guilty Of conduct so unpro
iessional, demoralizing, and degrading, a
that of corruptly tampering gith a Juror
and we are gratifed 90 find apon an eN
animation Of the record, that the facts ID
not make ont such a case against the attor
nev in this cause. Did they do so, i
would have been the imperative duty
Of the court not only 20 set aside the yer
dict but 10 have Indicted upon the attor
ney the heaviest penalties authorized 10y
law.
The fountains Of Justice, aud all th,
streams that flow therefrom, must be kept
pure aad interrupted. and the courts Of tn,
country can have no higher duty 10 per
form than 20 see that justice Is admiais.
tered 90 all according 20 law, and 60 thi.
end il he important, if not indispensable
that every body connected with its admin
istrstiou should stand above suspicion, an,
carefully abstain from ell conduct which
might tend TO bring reproach upon IN,
judicial tribunals OF the country. and th,
laws OF the land into contempt.
Affirm the Judgment
HAWKINS, Judge.