Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1881-01-13
who spoke briefly. The decision of the
Court was reserved.


court was reserved.
THE TANTuM CASE
At 20 D. m. the Tantum case was taken
up. Mr.. Lore opened the argument,
speaking about an hour. He was followed
by Austin Harrington, Esq, for the
appellee. Mr.. Harrington said
The case was tried by jury at the May
term. is 1880, and resulted in verdict for
the plaintiff of S709 &c. An application
was made for a rule to show why new
trial should not be granted, and upon
motion at the same term a rule was issued
reiurnsble TO the November term.
The sole ground upon which tho defend.
ants rested their application was, that the
verdict was ascertained by each juror pat
ting down upon paper 40 amount of
damages and dividing the aggregate BY
~, and rendering the quotient as a YER
dict. The offer was to prove these
facts by producing one or more of the
Jurors as witnesses TO testify to the facts
above stated. AT the November term,
upon the hearing of the rule, the Superior
Court proposed to hear argument in inine
upon tue question whether a juror should
b. permitted to be sworn to make such
proof but before argument proceeded,
upon the suggestion of the Court, the
| question as to the admissibiity of the testi-
mony of Juror TO impeach his verdict,
was reserved for argument before this
court.
The case addresses itself to this court
upon single point to wit the admission
| of Juror as witness to testify as to
| facts Transporting in the jury room. We
object TO such testimony for he reasons,
! l. The Court will not permit jury to
| lmpeach its own verdict. 2 The affidavit
| of juror will not be admitted by the
/ Court to get aside its own verdict The
evidence of any misconduct on the part of
jury whilst celebrating upon verdict
must come from outside parties.
We state first a general principle of law
as laid down in Tidd's Practice q Tidd.
| 5000 where it is said, that the Court will
not suffer the jury TO explain by affidavit
the grounds of their verdict or to show
that they intended something different
from what they found. I'm general, the
assent OF all the jury to the verdict pro-
nounced by the foreman in their presence
and hearing is to be conolusiveiy inferred
and no affidavit can in any case be
admitted to the contrary
II the above rule holds good in cases
where several jurors remain silent and
thereby assent TO the verdict a tortiorf,
where the jury was polled as in this case,
and the individual jurors announce it as
being their verdict. The same principle
is stated in l Greenleaf on evidence, 252.
An examination into our State Reports
discloses no decision upon the exact point
involved here, but such decisions as have
been rendered touching the matter, all 20
to show disposition on the part of the
Courts to exclude such testimony as is
offered In this case. The point, we may
say, is one of first impression in our State
and it remains Tor this court to fix prin-
ciple by which we may be guided in the
future in the interest of sutton, truth and
Justice See Chandler vs. Barker, Harr.,
3S7. McOomb vs. Chandler. Harr., 423.
In other states, however, into which we
have extended our examination, the rule
that Juror cannot be examined as a Wit
ness to impeaeh his verdict is well settled
and in exceptional cases where such testi
mony is admitted, they are we'll defined
and do not come within the case as pre-
sented here.
In case decided in 1870 by the
Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, Wood
ward VS.. Leayitt, Executrix, lO7 Mass
453, Gray, Justice, in au exhaustive aud
elaborate opinion, based upon humerous
authorities cited, concludes that gtliiavits
of jurors are admissible in denial OF ex
PLANTATION of declaration outside OF the
jury room, out that they cannot be re-
ceived even in support of verdict, to
prove the part taken by them in discus.
sions and votes in jury room.
We cite from the same State: Bridge
VS.. Eggleston, II Mass. 245; Murdoch VS..
Sumner % Flick. 1856; Cook Vs. Cashier,
Cush, PCS Boston Il Worcester Railroad
Company VS.. Dana, ! Gray "a.
In the case of State vs. Freemen, Z
Conn 3iS. the prisoner was indicted for
an attempt to commit rape. Verdict OF
guilty and accepted by the Court. Counsel
for prisoner moved for new trial on the
ground that one of the Jurors after ex
pressing his opinion against prisoners
innocence, bad declared in the Jury room
that the prisoner had, before that time
been conv cited of a similar otfense and had
> been punished. There had been no PROOF
> of such fact upon the trial. Severa
, Juror offered to testify and would hav,
established the truth of the fact stated. bu
the Court would not permit them to dis
, close such facts, The question came nj
to Court Of Errors, aud Hosmer, Chic
j, Justice delivered the opinion adverse Il
i, the reception of such testimony, whicl
= was concu,reo in by Justices Peter
y BraDard and Bristol.
later case, Of Mead VS. Smith 1t al II
u Conn. 3iG the Court, through justice
v Storrs. expressed themselves as satisfied
u with the reasons given by Justice Ho-mer
q in the case against freeman, Ut d affirmed
II the decision as rendered in that case.
:. We refer now to a case in Maryland
a Browne vs. Browne ct al % Md 1903
~ where the rule seems TO be well settled
/. THAT the test mnny of Jurors cannot b
heard to impeach their verdict, whethe
a the conduct objected to in the Jury b
!, misbehavior or mistake" and adopting
!, decision 10 Baseley vs. Chesapeake Bark
# 3 &, & j Alb, as general rule with fe,
4 exceptions, the evinenoe of jurors wi
40 not be heard TO impeach their verdict
~ We Rlso cite the case of Howard ct al Vi
= Mccall edmr, &c, 81 Graf. Wa 200.
e Ia case in New York State, Cium VI
A Smith, Hill, $50, the foreman of iur
separated FROM his fellows after charge i
ii order 10 learn from persons not of the iur
r the amount Of damages which ought to
D. found in order to carry costs He obtaue
If information that $50 was sufficient, where
n upon verdict for that amount was rel
r dered. The facts were sought to b
ie proved by atfidavits of three Jurors, but
,e Was admitted on argument that juro
le could not impeach his verdict for mistak
d or error, but could testify on the Rrouu
" of misconduct Court held that bot
ID grounds were covered by the majority {
cases, md deuied the motion for re-
rs trial. Dana VS.. Tucker, johnson As;
N People va, Common Pleas, / WeDd 297.
In Pennsylvania, in the case of Gu.
ct gage va. SuAn, Buney $50, the fac
I. were similar to those alleged here. Jnslic
ID Yates, after d discussion OF the cases bea
ing upon the point both here and
England, expresses the opinion clearl
that juror will not be permitted to in
- peach his verdict on the grounds of nj
VI conduct.
~ N We are not confined TO decisions in o,
81 own country, but reference TO the EnRlis
! authorities show that the same objectio
D. made here TO the testimony of Jurors as
~ their conduct whilst celebrating upon
a. verdict, is held good Burgess VS.. Langle
= ., Manning d Granger 72l, Thackery
u al VS.. Turner l, Moore Al, Straker VI
~ Graham 4, Meeson & Welsby 721.
+ In view OF the authorities cited, and j
n, view of the tsct that should juror /
m allowed TO impeach his verdict on Ii
Id grounds alleged here, it would render
" possible and probable contest over ever
1e verdict for damages that might hereatt,
q. be awarded, and considering the iniugtic