Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-03
TIE NEWS OF NORFOLK ON PAGES D 5&6

ant for damages that he claimed ac-
crued to him out of the same railroad
accident for which plaintiff. In his suit,
claimed damages; Halls suit being for
dana ges to his mules, wagon, and other
personal property injured at the same
time and place. 1t further appears
from the record that the plaintiff be-
low, by its counsel, asked that Hall be
allowed TO remain in the courtroom to
assist them In the management of the
case, which the court permitted; and
Hall did remain. and assisted in the
conduct Of the case and in the selection
of the jury. All these things occurred
In the presence of the court. 1t fur
Their appeared in testimony that the
jury were allowed to dispense when
court adjourned on a certain day dur
ing the trial, with instructions to com
municate with no one about the case.
Hall was in court a the time, and at
night. after the adjournment. he eX-
tended an invitation to one Pounds to
go and get a drink with him: ana
Howard. who was standing near, ac-
companied them by invitation of
Pounds. They went into an open bar
room. ard there ordered drinks and
cigars. Hall paying for the treat. After
wards Hall and the juror retired to the
same room In the hotel. and slept to-
Sether in the same bed. The next
morning motion for mistrial was
made by counsel for the railway COM
pany. and was overruled by the court.
and upon this ruling error Is assigned
in the bill Of exceptions.
In the admins ira ton of law, there is
perhaps nothing that is guarded with
more vigilance by the judiciary than
the conduct of the jury pending the
trial of a litigated case. For the sake
of public policy, and for the purpose of
maintaining and protecting the purity
of the jury box, and to insure a fair
and impartial trial to ltlgants, it is the
Policy OF the law that each juror should
be kept entirely and absolutely free
from any influence which might tend
to prejudice or bias his mind in favor
of either party to the case on trial
In Rainy v. State 100 Ga. 50. q S. e.
700, 1t appeared that during the trial
of n criminal case the jury dispersed,
and one of them was entertained at
dinner, free Of charge, by an attorney
of the State. 1t was held that such
conduct was cause for a new trial, al
though counsel for the accused knew-of
the same before the verdict had been
returned. 1t was further ruled by this
court that the trial judge should not,
and this court will not, inquire whether
injury resulted TO the accused or not
but the verdict. upon principles Of
sound policy, will be set aside. to the
end thrt the purity of jury trial may
be preserved and unimpaired In
Springer V. State, 81 Ga. $40, 1t was
held that the conduct of one of the
counsel gagged in the prosecution in
protecting for night. free Of charge
the horses of some of the Jurors. neccs-
stated the grant of Il new trial The
bove citations are only few among
the many cases decided by this court
in which verdicts have been set aside
on the ground OF misconduct of the
juror.-in some OF the cases, not as
reprehensible as the conduct OF the
juror In this case. This ruling is based
upon the idea that the court Will, at
all hazards. protect the purity of the
jury box; and, although the court
might be satisfied that there was no
fraudulent intent on the part OF the
Juror in his improper associa lions with
the party interested in the case on
trial, the general rule is that the ques-
ton as to whether injury has actually
resulted will not be inquired into by
the court. In this case it is true that
the person who treated the juror in
the barroons, and associated with him
as bedfellow during the night pend
ing the trial. was neither a party nor
an attorney for either of the parties to
the case on trial: but, having q case
against the same defendant company,
founded upon the same facts. there was
certainly as much to excite his interest
In the result OF the. trial as If he had
been a regularly employed attorney for
one Of the parties. Besides this. he
aided the plaintiff below during the
conduct OF the trial, going to the ex-
tent of assisting him in striking the
jury. The motion for a mistrial was
made Immediately upon the discovery
of the fact by counsel for plaintiff in
error. We think he clearly had
right to insist upon a trial before
jury of twelve men kept entirely free
during Tic TRIAL from any improper
associations or dealings involving ia
vors shown the jury by one so directly
interested in the result of the issue as
the evidence discloses Hall was in this
case. We think, therefore. the court
erred in everything this motion for
mistrial. Judgment reversed.
RR&MPI ETON