Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1878-03-13
tContinued1.

Ot our cOOeo are QetlyeQ from New YORK
sources, it will be pertinent to look more
In the People VS.. Carnal, I Parker's Or.
Rep, 256. where there was q conviction of
murder. 1t was held that ION q motion for 4
new trial on the ground Of improper con-
duct of the jury, the af1davits Of the Jurors
are not admissible TO prove such improper
conduct"
In The People VS.. Harluug, II How. Pr.
Rep, 81, 1t Is said that mo rule of law is
better ssttle1 than that the evidence of ju-
rors 10 not 20 be allowed for the purpose ofim.
peaching or in any way impairing the effect
of the verdict. The doctrine has long been
established in Eogland. It has been main
~ in the United States with the exception
Of Tennessee, where. following an early pre-.
cedent, its courts have somewhat modified
the rule"
In Wilson VS.. The People, 4 Park. Or.
Rep, 6l9, there was also q conviction of
murder aud a motion for q new trial. II
was he'd that afidavi.s of jurors cannot be
received TO show that, at the request of one /
of their number, a constable handed 10 q
paper on which were marked the several
punishments fixed By law for The
different degrees of manslauahter. The
court said that "the act was unquestionabiy |
an irregularity. 1t was az attemp: to do
what y jury has no legal right to do-to
not on the truth" But the Court, Gould,
j., remarked as to the rule that Jurors are
not allowed to make aft lavits to impeach
their own verdicts. as follows: /" And l
know of no sounder rule OF the law. Any
other rule would permit a juror whose con
science bound by his OATH would not allow
him TO refuse his assent to q verdict, to com
mi, or procure an irregularity that would,
on his own affidavit thereof, avoid the YER
dict. 1t would open the door for such mis-
chiefs as could not he endured"
The modern decisions in New York are
not less emphatic. In Dalrymple vs.. Will
iiams e al, 63 N. y. Rep, 1858. Tin 1879
Allen, j in delivering the opinion, says:
There are reasons of public policy why
jurors shonld not be heard to !mpeach their
verdicts, whether by showing their mis-.
takes or their misconduct." But the rule is
we'll understood reasons of public policy as
connected with the administration of jus.
tice, that the our will not receive the aft.
davits of jurymen TO prove misconduct on
their part, or any act done by them which
could tend to impeach or overthrow their
verdict. This rule excludes af1davits to
show mistake or error of the jurors IN res.
pect to the merits, OF irregul1rity or miscon-
duc., or that they mistook the effect of their
verdict, and intended something different
See, also, to same purport, Williams VS..
Montgomery, 60 N. Y, GAS.
The decisions of the supreme court of
California are also justly considered in this
territory as of leading importance, because
Of the similarity of the codes of that state
to u own codes. In People VS.. Baker, l
C>1 lnR - m, ko1I - = %.:ol g.. ~,,.la-
that 1t is q settled rule, founded upon con.
mony of q juryman cannot be received to
defeat his own verdict.
In Armsby vs.. Dickhouse. 4 Cal, 103,
the same rule was declared, and Murray, G
j.. said, "The court below erred IN setting
aside the verdict of the jury and granting {
new trial upon the affidavit of q juror of biz
own aud his fellow jurors misconduct"
The same doctrine is reiterated in Castro
VS.. Gill, Cal, 40, aad in Wilson vs. Der
ryman, 5 i'd. As
In People vs.. Wyman, Is CAL, 20, "a cas-,
of m%anslaughter) it was held that a verdic
cannot be impeached by an affidavit of a ju
ror, tending to show that it was not q TAI
ex oression of the opinion of the Jury.
The above rule was, however, changed b,
statute, passed March 9Th, 1862, so far as /,
permit yerdicts found "by = resort t.
chance,"to be impeached by the affidavit.
ofjurors. Their practice act, in relation t
"New Trials" Sec. 1913, Sub. g, was amend
'of the jury, and whenever any one or NOR
"of the jurors have been induced to assen
ito any general or special verdict, or to
finding on any question submitted to then
"bS the court, by a resort to the determins
"ti0n of chance, such misconduct may b
proved by the affidavit of any one of til
Jurors" See Bonner vs.. Palmer, 90 Cal
~; also Cal. Code of Civil Proc, QS72) sec
657, (s193) page 40.
1t is here noteworthy that our Code o
Civ. Proc, section 286, sub. 2, is in precis
agreement with the above provision il
California.
The case of Turner v. Tuolumne Co.
Is Cal, 1893, is highly interesting becaus,
whilst it upholds the common law doctrin,
that such afidavits cannot be received t.
impeach but to support the verdict, it places
a construction upon the amendment of 1867
as to what constitutes "a resort to chance
To the same effect Is Boyce Y. The Cal
Stage Co, Is Cal, 46O-475, in which the
old rule is reasserted, subject only to the
legislative exception. The opinion of San
derson Oh. j., on pages 475-6-7-S il worthy
of attention.
The People v. Hughes "a case of arson
80 Cal, 25s, s%ustains the previous adjudi.
cations as also does Hoare Y. Hindley 40
CAL, 275.
But q very pertinent case is People v.
Doyell, 4S Cal. IS, an indictment for muir
der. The defendant moved for q new trial,
and in support thereof, filed the affidavit OF
Frank johnson, one of the Jurors, Stating,
that while the jury we're celebrating, de,
PENDANTS character was being discussed, and
that H. Z. Perry, one of the jurors, stated
that defendant was, to his knowledge, a
qnarrelsom,e man. and that he was at one
time on n drunk at Downieville, and had
his sfms taken away from him. The afi-
dayit also stated that W. E. Corhett, another
Of the jurors, left the jury room through a
window, and remained absent eight or ten
minutes unattended by the sheriff; and
tha the jury had ,e1h them the Penal Code,
upd read portions thereof relating to murder
IN tie first and second degrees, and to man.