The New York herald., 1879-11-08
NOT ON THE PANEL.

JUDGE NELSON DECIDES THAT PERSONS NOT
REGULARLY DRAWN CANNOT SERVE ON
JURY-rHE VERDICT SET ASIDE IN THE
BROOKLYN COTTON CASE.
Judge Nelson. Brooklyn City Court. before whom
the motion argued about ten days ago. to set
aside the verdict in the action tried before him. in
which John Il. Dayton and Roger W. Waldo were the
plaintiffs and William II. Church defendant rem
dered his decision yesterday. The action
brought by the plaintiffs. who cotton brokers,
to s1.39s 70 which they claimed was due
them by defendant in certain transactions cotton.
The verdict was in favor of plaintiffs but 1t
subsequently discovered by defendant that there
an irregularity in the In which the jury
sidered the charge, and also that unknown
answered to the name of a citizen who had been
drawn the jury panel and had served in his place
ON the jury. The DECISION sets aside the verdict.
1t Is as follows:-
The City Court Of Brooklyn.-John X Dayton and
Justice Nelson The plaintiffs had acted brokers for
cotton The contracts time, and had been each
The action @a. SPoagh, on an
balance claimed, s q s %S.t serious question
The jury we're nirastsd that IL The contracts had been
cotton to be delivered accepted they were
Illegal: and tho plaintiffs could not recover That
consider tho evidence, the form oi the con,
sus ai 81 In e sns for the the
n Inc ay ppssT 70 20 & % b as nS %
without obJectug to its correctness and that the
tracts not made with tho intent that cotton should
An application is now mado bchalf Of tho defendant
10 set tho verdict tho ground that certain rrcgu
larties had occurred 1t is claimed and by the certificate
sdav has been proved that their deliberations and
oa II SH ,Is
the contracts that should delivered or
cepted IL Is sufficient TO that 10 Is well settled that
tho sworn statement as TO the eS,en, aud char
cok adavits be received to the Even
alter much contention The eases as TO Zach rule arc
cited in Dalrymple vs. Williams. es \. y r.. JJi.
SERIOUS tRekGuLARtry.
tlon Addison O6apmaS OF No. iti Java street, Ia ,Ss
when this was tried The formalites imposed
b. The been received aud enterrd ON
the records OF The Court and the notices tho
Jurors by the sheriff. Mr. Chapman thus served lie
did attend tho Court required. but who
and served in lis place stead wa. with The aross
by whom this verdict found. by what corrupt
discovered aud the name residence and occupation of
that pretended arymaa ,smain unknown His character
Bui In determining wh:ther this verdict should bs 70.
pies aud of the nearly akin To this
case as be recalled.
pass eases where tho irregaiarity
mistake Of h officers In drawing the Jury ms In Oowen
Ss aud ws@S as S s ws Tnsrs sss % Was %
juror had In fact been summoned, but by the wrong
p (notc) other OF alleged irreauary some
what unlike that before The case Of iIill Yates.
the sou OF juryman whose name was on tho panel
answered when his father was called aud served the
decision has not been followed in the English courts d
s s% IL az Norman a% 'SS vs. rbSSns bsaon E
an action q tespass damages one shilling. tho yerdic,
prus panel answered as Richard Greatcr, whose namc
was on and having been acted Of Jury
main. bowl a RyL. esi, and IN Dovey vs. nobson, Z