The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1889-02-14
Judge Robinson Grants a New Tri.
aAinIse kFeckunau Case.


tried in the Common Pleas for mary |
ts,ms, was that of Michael Beckmsn |
sgaiust Elias and Frederick Hickman.
10 epitomize the case, Elias Heck
man WAS at ore time among the heay
lest wool dealers in this part of the
State, and as is common with that
class of merchants, was in the habit
of borrowing large sums of money foI
short periods of time. which he invest
ed in his business. In 1872 he lost
upwards of 200, 900 pounds of wool in
the great Boston. fire. Previous to Il
he had borrowed some $50 900, giviug
his notes, signed by his brothers, Fred
erick and Michael Heck man, as sure
ties. He took the benefit of the Ma
tional bankrupt law then ia force, and
was landed high and dry above the
reach of his creditors, aud his sureties
were forced to pay the amount of the
notes.
The suit in question was commenced
by Michael Hickman to recover
against the two brothers the amount
he had been compelled to contribute
toward paying the $50. 900 Indebtedness
OF Elias. He alleged that unknown
10 him al the time he signed said note,
Elias and Frederick were really part
ners, and that instead of Frederick
signing as surety, his obligation wss
that of principal, being really part
ner OF his brother. OF course if such
were the case, each one of the partners
would be individually liable for the
entire Indebtedness of the firm. aud
the proceedings were Instituted To
subject Frederick Heck man to paying
to the plaintiff the amount he had
lost through Eiias's misfortun. Know
ing that be could collect nothiYg from
the latter, and could from the former.
The case occupied several days, and
was vigorously contested by either side
The evidence was conflicting and OF
such character as to render very un
certain the real merits of the case
ave by very careful, close analysis
of the testimony, and even then diff
cult to decide the real facts.
The parties litigant were represented
by able counsel, and the jury. afte,
dsliberatiDg some time, returned &
verdict in favor of the defendants, de
Gliding that Mr.. Fred Hickman signed
simply as surety ,and exoneraling him
from all liability as partner.
By some avenue of hearsay it was
soon whispered that Irregularities, hao
come to light in the conduct of certain
I, tiied by, plaintiffs attorneys to hav.
: the verdict set aside on several ground
-one of them being :: bscsuse of tn
misconduct of tie jury during tb,
progress of the trial aud while sxpara
. ted after they were sworn and bpfo.,
they bad agreed upon their verdict IL
, said case"
" The motion was supported by con
o siderable evidence, anu on Saturda,
morning Judge Robinson allowed i
to prevail, and set aside the verdict O
the jury.
q 1t Was developed during the hearip,
q of the motion that some of the Juror
n had been seen playing cards in clu
"a room adjacent to the office Of one G
the counsel for defense, and had pai
" ticipated in game in " hich this sam
:, counsel took a part. 1t now h re AZ
!, peared that any improper motives ex
q isted Cd the part of eith-r jurors q
counsel, or that they were aetnat4 d b
d any other object than TO e, jny an eve
q niug's social pleasure. Indeed, IN
Judge, in renderirg his ,lecisinn, 8
stated in substance, but based his de
!, cisicn on the inHpropsiety OF such con
duct, independents of any motive, All
), the close nature of the case, reouirin
!, but a breath Co turn the scales In favo
, of one or the other of the parties. ii
:, -Caied thats had the case been left fo
him to decide. he would hardly hav
!. KnUwn his duty, go conflicting wa
=: the eviden cs; and it was of suprem
r. moment to the rights and interests {
N plaintiffs and defendants, to have tb
N, surroundings and associations of tn
jury absolutely free from any elemel
hat would tend in the slightest degre
! Influence their decision. This cast
a, turning on the most delicate consider
tt, ations, may have been regarded by til
! Jurors as almost Incapable of decision
r and the bare contact with any of th
te counsel may, have been the feathe
), weight that turned the scales.
!, This decision, in principle. will con
i. mend itself to the approval of all VIII
), appreciate the i'm portsnce of insurir
:, purity in the administration of justie
!, and desire to preserve intactt he pril
!. ciplesof perfect fairness lying at th
!, foundation of the jury system. Irre,
e ularities III the conduct. of judicial tr
n ais should be rendered lmpossi5l
is However slight apparently they ma
oe, If overlooked or parsed in silenc
=, hey form precedents for further vi,
y iations of good faith, that in time III
). dermine the most perfect system. an
!, ender the most solemn adjudication
nere mockeries. If uDiDtentiona
|, their mischief should be pointed ou
!, aud the parties Instructed in the duti,
) Incumbent on them. If practicsd i,
r 5enGionally, the severest penalti,
!, should be visited on those participate
q in,thenl, and the odious practice ersC
;, icated, root and branch. That me
! should be allowed the privilege of ha,
ing their differences adjusted an
lights vindicated in tribunal whel
n ,,ias, prejudice, and dishonesty al
unknown, is the very object of estal
;. fishing courts of law. Men have su
rendered their natural means of prt
L ectiUn in order to avoid scenes of vii
renee, and to peaceably obtain the
:, honest rights, and no greater evil coul
: infect the body polite than cerruptio
- ;fe foranaia halle