The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-02-25

not explained The question here arises whether the
plain the his When the
Of in
S be s BY such b. an me to as wa e
construction 70 Be introduced IN the answer as II then
defence s''D In eject Ss' the
OF re-. ossn Sssn to s Y
HsH' SslnSsh E%RsS snnsss
T. ISL rssa vs. wH Sa1s IS Vi flow r. ssp ST.
% wss Ur
sppostom IN this case az sSss the amended
S on The roll ss ns
By liz saW i
Of making the answer should have have
Sp ss Ses$ a
other reply would have BEEN nterposed to the Counter
claim In johnson Mcintosh, supra, the referee ad;
spss sd s$ssI
proper - woo s vs. pek aeonSp How b. S
@
facts 70 neW cause Of action or
Sa be pleading and not an
a ss s no sus s nsa to
Gs = srs%. was
pIsa Sss1sy oSns cross as acten FOR
s Ss U.s. or Ten vs. ses
amy w x Ms q MSe s an s to Ss
n @ had s maa s rHa @
so%peisnt to allow further smendment q the
3 soaen c si" s s aSesn the sss
action was pending The law does not favor double
Gf Tvs oss s. sss0n
n to to set aside The
Ss
bower Of the Tslsrss to allow the without
clearly the opinion that referee had no power
ment this is founded and that his report for that
reason 2so should be set aside .ros ~.
of the plaintiffs states his aiaav that before the
told him he should advise S% settle settle the ca lie ar
ther states he came TO him second time after the
SRsd ns IN is 6s
made atidayit on the subject in which admits he
called on MI SewS but says was upon another mat
m
with 5 s 'h par
baS made S remark n in that he
s sase q yet that
did give judgment the defendant It would necessarily
oG Asf sS s aea ss s rs
II a he pess s Sf 90 Of
toning sum having been discussed spoken Of
ssm %s me Of hs ss ae
or having elf from the other side
goator. However honest his intentions well
his endeavors. the failure of the attempt may
be ground for the suppOsition that his subse
quent Judgment was, in some degree, influenced
by It, The referee is gentleman of high standing and
character and cannot be supposed that in fact he has
allowed his mind to be influenced by the refusal of the
plaintiffs to yield to his suggestions OF compromise.
But has been held that the rule should be applied
to referees to jurors. Gale Garmts How. 25)
Whenever juror has been guilty of an irreguarty
which gives any reason suppose that either party has
been preudiced by it, the verdict will be set aside.
Hill, III; Cow III i'd, $50; i'd. sssi i'd, 2ssl
right OF gan to the unbiased Judgment OF the jury
been seen that by any means or influence beyond what
pares The minds Of the Jury may have been influenced
teeir verdict will be set aside. (Dorlon Lewis,
How, ~ What was said in that case is appro-
pirate here "A referee owes 1t to himself not only
avoid improper influences but the appearance OF
evil, Whether satisfied with the decision not one
should be left for moment to question its fairness 1t
rom party that $35 900 sum" to be paid to
him by the other to be the bearer the suggestion
% the other side with the Indictment that it might be
we'll 10 think the matter in the light Of the predc
ion that if he did give Judgment defendants would
be for very large amount. Whether the
allure OF the plaintiffs to comply with the suggestion Of
he referee had influence upon his mind il |
seems proper that referee jury should be delivered
rom the possibility of bias temptation under such |
circumstances An order will be granted vacaing the
Judgment entered in this action and setting aside the
OF the referee tor irrcguarty and also dschargng
he order of reference,