Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-02-13
Strong agt. the District.


To-day in the Court In General Term Judges
Wylie, Macarthur, and Hagner, the latter de-
ivered the opinion of the court in the case OF s.
Strong agt. the District awarding a new trial.
This case has become somewhat noted in con-
sequence OF the peculiar circumstances sur
rounding its trial last September, before Judge
Humphreys.
Judge Hagner stated that the opinion was
concurred In by the Chief Justice as wen "a; as
motion for a new trial, in arrest Of Judgment,
the motion to strike out Judgment, &c. In re-
gard to the motion for a new trial, the prin-
ctpal point was whether or not the jury was
properly constructed for the purpose OF trlai.
He recounted the calling OF the case In the CIR
cult Court In May last, its postponement untli
July 18th, when the jury was impanneued ana
respited until september 10th, when the court
was reconvened, juror excused, another
sworn in his place and the next day IKE actl9a ION
was taken with another. This made ten old
Jurors and two new ones, and each was sworn
separately. They had great doubt If jury
they might say that one juror from the May term
and eleven summoned subsequently would
constitute legal panel Then the jury was
sworn and motions were MADE 70 st1iSe &c, ouC GER
cases and Overruled in others. motion was
made to withdraw Juror and continue the
reconsdered his ruling and permitted the ta eS
ceptiOnS to be amended, and the other side
asked for continuance to prepare an answer
which tue court refused, and directed the case
for there should have been time given, and the
amendments having been made the Jury had
been sworn to certain issues joined which had
b zen CHI n ed AS to the tate of the plead ngs
as TO the auditors report, they could not be
said TO have been tried In the case at all-in
other WORDS it was almost a traversty OF trial
rs 10 the stipulation in regard to continuance
the counsel had tie Right to make IL. and It
should have been acceded to. The att0rney
were officers OF the court, which would almost
be pOWerleSS without them. The court relies a
great deal on the attorneys and their Stipula-
lions, and they frequently save time and eXpe-
dite justice. In regard to the other stipula-
tions, this was not brought into court
by the counsel; it was an outside
document. but 1t was brought in by
the plaintiff. They were not of the opinion
that such StipulatiOnS were dangerous. unless
If lawyers enteIe ed into such stipulatiOnS the
plaintiff should be allowed, IL he saw his chance,
TO come in and refuse t. abide the agree nent.
IL was surprising to see the plaintiff come In
and say that he did not know what he had
signed, and that his signature was Obtained
through fraud and Misrepresentation. This
was case In which an enormous verdict had
all interest and it would not do to say that he
could come Ia and obtain this verdict by simply
saying that he was mSled. There were other
questions which IL is unnecessary TO decide
row, and, is in this case. all the expense seems
10 nave grown out OF the plaintiffs action In
fepud1ating the stipulation. and going to trial
they would direct that be pay the costs Tney
therefore set aside the judgment and award
new trial with costs
Mr.. Cook gave notice Of an appeal to the ST.
pTtlne Court Uf the nited States.