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 VIII
ness, and il 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
suhjecting the parties to the expense
and delay incident to retnal Of the
case. The remarks of Judge Dana in
the case Of Lacoe VS.. Sherwood, b
Luz. Leg. Reg, I47, might well have
been written for the present case with
the qualification that the conversations
alleged here were not with party 10
the case. 1t is gross mlsbehayior
lor any person to speak to a 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 4 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 well as parties litigant and
are neither to be presumed or held
guilty OF misbehavlor and their verdict
set aside without satisfactory proof oI
the charge. To yield to accusation:
against them lightly made or without
strong proof would weaken if no
bring into contempt that useful ans
indispensable institution IN the admin
istration of justice: Rogers e, II
/ Com. vs. Flanagan. : W. & S. AL
| TTka-a - evidence n
5 conversation between one OF In
/. iurymen and the defendants, or on
: Of them, bat this is specifically anC
$ positively denied by the juror and tn
;. parties charged. We cannot say thu
;. the fact is so far established as t
: warrant the court in setting aside ,h
V verdict
z We do no, think much importanc
:. should be attached TO the remar
: alleged to have been made by II
II juror in the dining room. The 7
Is marks which he admits he made
% Mr.. Fowler even if made in reply
lie an inquiry were improper and in di
regard OF the admonitlon OF the coul
But it is to be observed that they we
- not made to party or any one ints
, ested in the case and taken as who
- do not clearly show prejuigment
N "a strong disposition to favor t
80 one side or the other, determ;n
= ton TO find IN one way let the e
;, dence be what it will McCauslal
~ vs.. McCausland, I Y, So.
Of Upon careful review OF the whC
NV case We ind no sufficient reason 1
ed setting aside the verdict OF the ju
OF therefore the rule is discharged.
zee CHARLES Z. RICE,
he Pres't Judge IL Jud. Di
to Specially presiding.