Evening journal., 1901-03-12
NO NRW TRIAL
FOR HENDERSON
In Refusing tOReOpen Pritch-
ard lCaSG Court Gen.
SurCd Lawyer

nounced the opinion OF the court on
the argument for a new trial in the
case Of Pritchard VS.. Henderson, refus-
ing to grant the second trial and or
dering that the original verdict for
Pritchard stand. To the courts decree,
j. Harvey Whiteman and Charles B.
Evans, for the defendant, noted an eX-
/ lception which the court fled.
/ The courts reply to the argument of
counsel for and against the motion
was:
One Of the reasons urged for new
trial in this case. IS the rather unusual
one in this court, Of the alleged mis-
conduct OF certain counsel for the
iplaintff; in holding private conversa-
tions with members Of the jury. after
They were sworn in the case and before
1.-The verdict was rendered.
In Johnson VS.. Porter. Harr. 225,
the verdict was set aside because the
defendant conversed with the jurors
after they were sworn. The conversa-
ltion being unexplained. and the verdict
being against the evidence.
In that case Chief Justice John NJ.
clayton used this language: In any
ease where the verdict is strongly
1 against the evidence, and this is ac-
lcompanied by proof that the party in
whose favor the jury have erred. has
lbeen seen in conversation with them.
latter they were sworn, and he does not
promptly account for the conversation,
1--we will set aside the verdict He has
no business with the jury, except in
lcourt He ought to have kept away
b 4 b.a NJ NJ nl
In suspicious circumstances, ne must
lbe prepared to clear himself from the
suspicion or take the consequences"
We would approve and emphasize
this doctrine. and say further that the
doctrine applies to the counsel of the
respective PARTIES as well as to the
parties themselves. If, therefore, the
conversations which have been proved
jim this case were unexplained, the
verdict for that reason would be set
aside.
By consent OF counsel in this case
the rules OF evidence have been dis
i, Regarded the doors thrown wide OpeI
and all the conversations referred tC
have been detailed and explained, a:
having no relation to the case on trial;
, both by the counsel and the jurors i'm
lplicated. AS explained, they seem &c
o have had no influence whatever upon
= the verdict. In such case, so far as
1--WE have been able to examine, the au-
Z thOrities are quite uniform that the
verdict itself should not be disturbed
p however imprudent such conduc
o might be. The rule being, that TEN.
[ pOrary association or conversation, be
e tween the jurors and counsel, which is
satisfactorily explained, VII not re-
quire the setting aside of the verdict
if IL is shown to be Of a non-prejudi.
cial character; as where there Is nc
conversation in regard to the case or
trial. Delany VS.. Hartwig, 81 Wis. 412i
Parsons VS.. Johnson, 66 Iowa 1853; II
q A. and e. Ency. Law 1914 I'D Ed.) ans
Z cases cited.
We must not. however, pass ovei
e the fact, that one of the counsel casu
\ ally meeting, publicly treated two O
d the jurors in the case in one OF the sa
p looms of this city during the progress
e of the trial. Such conduct is mos
a lreprehensible, and we cannot tot
strongly condemn such an example O
g culpable imprudence and 'impropriety
= Nothing but the full and detailed ex
e PLANTATION of al the circumstances o
i thls treating, made before this cOur
! on oath, by the counsel, one Of tn
jurors and by the saloon-keeper save
e this verdict on this point.
n There was sufficient conflict Of tes
& ltimony before the jury in this cas-
r from which reasonable men Nigh
: draw different conclusions; and as thu
jury were the sole judges of the evi
Il ldence. and as there were special,
u charged not to regard any statemen
of counsel not supported by the evi
= dence; and as there is nothing be
= fore us to show that any such state
u lment in anywise affected the verdict
a within the well settled practice of thi
: court the verdict should net be dis
tuTbcd for such reasons.
We therefore refuse to order a new
trial.