The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1895-05-03

new trial, but this objection is over.
ruled. While the testimony of jurors
is not admissible to impeach their
verdict upon the ground of their own
misconduct it is admissible to disprove
ar allegation of misconduct. Because
OF the accusation against him and the
proceedings to punish him for con
tempt the Juror is an interested wit
ness, and if the denial of the allega
tons rested on his testimony alone
we might well say that the evidence
in support of the rule preponderated.
But, as we have suggested, he is cor.
roborated by other witnesses and with
out rejecting them as unworthy of
belief we are unable to say that the
evidence in support Of the rule so
clearly preponderates as to justify the
court in setting aside the verdict and
subjecting the parties to the expense
and delay incident to retrial of the
case. The remarks of Judge Dana in
the case of Lacoe VS.. Sherwood,
Luz. Leg. Reg, r47, might well have
been written for the present case with
the qualification that the conversations
alleged here were not with party to
the case. cit is gross mlsbehavior
lor any person to speak to juryman
or for juryman to permit any person
to converse with him respecting the
case he is trying, at any time after he
is summoned and before the verdict
is delivered. 1t is practice which
corrupts one Of the sources of justice
and is to be resolutely repressed and
when detected punished by the courts.
1t must be known that a party may
lose but cannot gain by conversing
with juror after he is sworn unless
it be open and by permission Of the
court that if the verdict be against
him it will stand /; if for him it will be
set aside. But, in view of the serious
nature Of the accusation it must not
be forgotten that the jurors have
rights as we'll as parties litigant and
are neither to be presumed or held
guilty of misbehavior and their verdict
set aside without satisfactory proof Of
the charge. To yield to accusations
against them lightly made or without
strong proof would weaken if not
bring into contempt that useful and
indispensable institution In the admin.
istration of justice: Rogers j., in
Com. VS.. Flanagan, 7 w. & S., 4zI.
* There is some evidence OF
conversation between one of the
jurymen and the defendants, or one
of them, but this is specifically and
positively denied by the juror and the
parties charged. We cannot say thai
the fact is so far established as tc
warrant the court in setting aside the
verdict"
We do not think much importance
-. should be attached to the remarl
alleged to have been made by tn,
juror in the dining room. The re
5 marks which he admits he made t
} Mr.. Fowler even if made in reply t,
: an inquiry were improper and in dis
regard of the admonition of the court
But it is to be observed that they wer
not made to party or any one inter
ested in the case and taken as Who'll
do not clearly show prejudgment-
\ "a strong disposition to favor tn
n one side or the other, a determine
ton to find In one way let the ev
dence be what it will" McCauslan
v VS.. McCausland, I Y, 372.
# Upon careful review of the who|
v case we find no sufficient reason fc
d setting aside the verdict of the jur
If therefore the rule is discharged.
e CHARLES +. RICE,
C Pres't Judge II Jud. Die
o Specially presiding.