The daily gazette., 1880-05-28
FIFTH EDITION.
THE COUNTY COURTS
THE MAY TERM WINDING UP.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL In TIRE
CRoAsDALE-TANTUM LIBEL SUIT.
Specially reported for the GAZETTE.

ShACl OuSbICO OOIIlGHXH and
Judge Houston on the bench.
Motion was made by Chas b. Lore.
Esq, for new trial In the libel suit OF
VIM. T. Croasdale VS.. DIR. j. X, Tan
tum, the jury in The trial just ended
having returned verdict for the pIain-
tiff.
The reasons filed for the motion aie
as follows:
!. The verdict is against the evil
dence.
2. The verdict is against the weight
OF the evidence.
3. The verdict is against the law.
4. That In determining :he amount
to be awarded to the plaintiff, each Juror
set down sum according to his own
judgment, which sums were added M.
and the aggregate divided by twelve, the
result thus obtained being returned as
their verdict.
On these grounds Mr. Lore asked for
a fJr rule fUr the other side to show
cause why new t.ial should not be
granted.
MIR. Bird inquired how il was expecl-
ed to prove the fourth reason, since II
was generally understood that the iu-
rors could not be made TO testify in re-
gard 10 the verdict.
Mr.. Lore said it could be proved by
witnesses. He then proceeded with his
argument and legal citation, To prove
that the verdict OF jury should be the
result of a deliberate judgment and not
OF chance or hazard aud that in this
case result was not the verdict of the
Jury, but mere agreement ascertained
by chance beforehand.
Messrs. Bates and Bird opposed the
motion for the rule, and based their ar.
gumen.s mainly on decision IN fourth
Harrington, wherein the counsel put IN
ms own statement OF what Juror ha
SAID TO him about ascertaining verdict
oy means of aggregation and average.
In TINS case the Court set aside the mo.
tlon, because the grounds for the appli-
cation were lot properly laid.
Col. Whiteley argued that this system
OF arriving a. a verdict of damages was
pernicious in itself and it also puts the
case IN the hands of one bad iuryman,
who while he might contend Tor onl,
Sooo damages, could put down $4,000 as
hls estimate, i'll order to oyerbalance the
average against those who might be il
favor Of only six cents or nothing. He
also argued that there was 10 law agansl
1aVi"g a juror testify as TO the mod,
adopted for arriving at verdict, and ia
support OF this view, cited numerous
legal authorities.
In this case, Col. Whiteley said the
Jury agreed to be bound by the resalt
OF their aggregate and average, and to
stand by the result when they were
polled. lie claimed the rightto prove
This by juror in the case, and that it
was sufficient ground for he invalida-
tlon of tie verdict. As for the Jury
that would decide IL verdict in this
way, Col. Whiteley held that they all
should be brought into Court to testi-
" to the fac, and he punished for con-
,empt. Such verdicts tend to bling
,he jury system into contempt.
Chief Justice Comegys said the case
must be settled on The affidavit of the
counsel for the defendant. The s,atc-
nent in the affidavit setting forth the
node adopted by the jury of arriving
1t verdict, if proved, shows want
If dellberation and a jury verdict has
40 force without deliberation. Ger
ainly it is no way to make YER
lict.
The Chief Justice alluded to the
suggestion of receiving the testimony
II jury as to the facts determining a
'erdict, and cited a number of instan-
'es where such testimony would be |
necessary, as the facts could be proved |
n no other way Than by the les imony |
'f jurors. He said he had very little |
'egard for the idea that misconduct.
corruption and improper measures on |
he part of jury could not be proved |
Dy the Jurors themselves.
In our opinion, said the Chief JUS |
ice, this rule should be granted, and |
20 over until the next Court, when
Judge Wootten will be present and we
IAN get the benefit of his counsel.
Judge Houston said the Courts of |
his State had never said they would
lot admit juror to impeach verdict
although they had never yet done SO.
lie also thought that as Judge Woot-
en was absent the rule should 90 over.
1t was was finally decided 10 argue
he question of a new trial before the
1ourt of Errors and Appeals.
Mr.. Bird then asked the Court to
ieclde whether the case of Croasdale
IS. Iantum was proper one for
pecial jury.
Mr. Bird states as "a reason for ask
ng for special jurors in this case, that
II late years the regular jury panels
this county have not included the
'est men in the county. This case,
le said, might have involved mass
# testimony in relation TO insurance
matters, TO determine which would re-
.uire careful business men, as ordi-
ary men could not have dealt with
hem.
Col. Whiteley said lie did not think
ne case was proper one for a special
ury, as 1T was only an ordinary action
or damages and slander.
The Chief Justice said he did NOT
hink special juries were proper. ex-
ept where the common panel was a
cry poor one, or the cases such as to
epulre men of an unusual degree of
Intelligence to decide them. lie did
ot think this proper case for a
pecial jury, and Judge Houston con
urred in this opinion.
By tins decision tue plaintiff, Croas-
ale, Will be required to pay the costs
the special jury in the rantum case.
'hlch amounts TO $2O3.S4. The tota
ost OF all the special jurors asked for by
lr. Croasdale's counsel in these cases.
nd which he will have, to pay is 1886:
gainst which is only the undecidej