Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-04-05
KNOCKED OUT BY A JUROR.
The Morris-Mammotb Case, when
Almost Ready to go to the Jury,
is Thrown Out on the Dis
covery of an Incom-
petent Juror.

On Saturday the concluding testimony
for the plaintiff in the Norris Mammoth
case, being all in, counsel for the defense
entered motion for Il non-suit, and the
matter was argued at some length and
taken under advisement.
Judge Zane, this morning, without at
tempting to go into detailed review the
evidence, gave the opinion that there was
sufficient in his judgment TO Justify the
case going to the jury Tor u verdict, and
he would therefore override the motion
for non-suit and allow the case to proceed.
At the conclusion OF the Judges opin-
ion and when it was expected that the
case would be proceeded with by the
taking OF testimony for the defense, p. J..
Williams, Esq, and Judge Bennett, one
of the counsel on each side, stepped aside
and engaged in whispered conversa-
ton, during which the Court was kept
waiting Presently Mr. Morris, the
plaintiff, was called over and became a
party to the conference, and for nearly
half an hour the attorneys and principals
of the case on both sides engaged spirit
eddy in the controversy, which now began
to excite good deal of curiosity among
spectators as well as with the
Court itself. When the Judge
himself was approached and the same
secret silence observed, it became evident
that something important had been
sprung. This suspicion was Immediately
afterwards confirmed, when Judge Ben
nett stated to the court that he had some
thing which it was his duty to commune
cate, and which should not properly be
NJ In. fhn rracapnn nj tho ii1rv
Mr.. Brown suggested that the Judge
and the attorneys repair to the clerks
room, but this was peremptorily sat down
upon, and the Judge instructed Deputy
Hurd to take the jury out OF court and
remain with them until otherwise adj
vised.
The jury once disposed Of, Judge Ben
nett announced that the knowledge had
reached him yesterday that one OF the
jurors was q relation of the plaintiff, and
believing it his duty to communicate the
fact to the opposite counsel and to the
Court, he had in so doing received con-
firmation which left no longer any doubt
that this relationship existed. This
juror was said to be related both by Atm
ity and consanguinity to the plaintiff
Morris. Mr.. Morris, however, denies
the existence of any blood relationship,
but admits through his counsel that the
juror is a relative of his (Morris) wife
in fact, that he is her nephew. 1t has
been suggested that this juror be with
drawn and that the trial proceed
with the remaining eleven. We
have reasons for Directing to this which
it is better not to mention here. The
juror at all events is improperly in the
jury box, owing to his relationship to
plaintiff. Judge Bennett proceeded to
read the statute relating to the various
degrees of affinity and consanguinity
and gave his opinion that the relation.
ship in question was either the second Oh
the third degree. He also stated to the
Court that the juror had lived with the
plaintiff four or five years from the time
he was years old till about 10. Thi:
was after the death OF the jurors parents
and he had during those years lived
under the plaintiffs nurture and care.
Arthur Brown argued that the pres
ence OF the disputed juror in the box was
due to the fault, if there be fault, of the
defendants counsel. 1t was their priv
lege to interrogate the jurors and ascer
tain such facts as those claimed. {
might be that they and the defendant:
had known OF this relationship all along
during this trial.
The defendants counsel here Offered
to file atfidavits ior themselves and thei
clients, avowing ignorance OF the relation
ship prior to last Thursday. These aft
davits were afterwards filed, not how
ever until Attorney Brown had subjected
several of the afidavits to n red-hot ex
animation
Mr. Williams insisted that il even til,
relationship be established it would BIZ
unfair, after all the trouble, time and ex
pense spent on the case, to ignore villa
had already been done and proceed to .
new trial He had doubts about the re
lationship, for his client had informed
him that the wife who was claimed to br
an aunt OF the jurors was Il polyamou
wife and was not therefore entitled unde
our statutes to recognition in the sense o
a relationship. Affinity means marriage
and the fact that the first wife in this in
stance is still living argues against TIN
presumption OF marriage. If it be in
sisted that the jurors residence with tn,
plaintiff during his tender years had ere
ated impressions and feelings disqualify
ing him from sitting as Juror on thi
case, then am willing, NOTWITHSTANDING.
that the trouble is due wholly to the lacl
OF diligence on the part OF the opposit,
! SoAitioSl tiicii Oh Ille Juror
to have him withdrawn and let the cas-,
proceed with the eleven jurors.
Judge Sutherland, for the defense, in
sisted that the question OF Legitimate,
or illegtimacy did not cut any figure ii
the premises as it was the relationship o
plaintiff to the juror through marriag,
that was taken cognizance of. 1t wa
evident that the fact under discussion
had been hidden from the counsel anc
the court through the evadlng manner il
which the juror had answered certain
questions. The relationship had thu
been concealed by false answer, anc
this together with the fact that the plain
tiff himself sal here and saw the juror %
into the box, fully cognzant of the ex
listing relationship, constituted on
grounds for challenge.
Mr.. Varian, to settle the question as t,
the particular degree of affinity existing
quoted the law and offered some expla
nations, contending that it was certainI,
either the second or the third degrees n
before shown. He had himself exam
ined the juror as to his qualifications
the time OF his being accepted as Juror
and If the clerk would read the minute.
OF that examination it would be seen tina
tho iurnt. ho1