Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-03-14
A NEW TRIAL is REFUSED
Verdict IN The Prltchard-Henderson
Suit VIII, Therefore. Stand.
ACTION OF ATTORNEY CRITICISED
For Treating Two of the Men
Who Sat on the Jury.
FULL TEXT OF THE COURTS DECISION

The Surerior Court Tuesday morning
refused to grant new tria. In the case
OF John Pritchard VS.. Henry Hendpr-
son, which had been applied for by
j. Harvey Whiteman and Charles u.
Evans, counsel for Henderson. Tbs YER
dict 10 the case was in favor Of
Pritehard, establishing his heir-at-
lawship as the son of Caroline u.
Pritchard, ard deciding that the al.
leAed willof Mrs. Piitcharu was invalid.
Chief Justice Lore, in announcing
the decisi9n Of the court on the appli,
cation for anew trial, said:
One at he reasons urged for a new
trial 10 this cage, Is the rather unusual
one In this court, of the alleged mis-
conduct OF certain counsel for the
plaintiff; in holding private converse
tions with members OF the jury, after
they we're sworn In the case and before
the verdict was rendered.
In johnson Va. Porter, 2 Harr. 225,
the verdict was set aside because the
defendant oonversed with the Jurors
after they were sworn. The conversa-
tion being unexplained, and the YER
dict being against the evidence.
In that case Chief Justice john NJ.
Clayton used this language: In any
case where the reruict is strongly
against the evidence, and this is 40.
companied by proof that the party in
whose favor the jury have erred, has
been seen in conversation with them,
after they were sworn, and be does not
promptly account for the conversation,
we will set aside the verdict lie has
no business with the jury, EXCEPT In
court He ought to keep away from
them, and if he will place himself In
suspicious cilcumstanc 8, he must be
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 we'll as to the
parties themselves. II, therefore, the
conversations which have Leen proved
10 thls case we've unexplained, the YER
dict for that reason would be set aside,
by consent OF counsel in this case,
the rules OF evidence have been disre-
graded, the duots thrown wide omen ard
all the conversations referred to have
been detailed and explained, as having
no relation to the case on trial both
by the counsel and the Jurors impli-
Gated. As explained, they seem to have
had no influence whatever upon the
verdict. In such case, 30 far as we
nave been able to examine, the authori-
ties are quite uniform that the verdict
itself should not 6e disturbed, however
lmprudent such conduct might be.
Inc rule being, thatttemporary asso-
citation of conversation. between the
Jurors and counsel, which is salts
factorily explained, will not require
the setting aside of the verdict, FIT is
SHOWN to be OF non -prejudicial char.
aeter as where there is no converse.
ton III regard to the case on trial.
pelany va. Hartwig, OIL Wis. 4l2; Par.
sons Va. Johnson, 66 Iowa 4a3; II A,
and e. Eucy. Law 12l4 I'D Ed. and
cases cited.
We must not. however, pass over the
fact, that one of the counsel casuaIly
meeting, publicly treated two Of tho
jurors In the case in one of tho saloons
OF this CITY during the progress of the
trial Such conduct is most repre-
hensible, and we cannot too strongly
condemn such an example of oulpable
imprudenoe ami improperly. Nothing
but the full and detailed explanation
of all the circumstances Of this treat.
ing, made before this court on oath.
by the counsel, one of the jurors and
by the saloon keeper saves this verdict
on this point.
There was sufficient conflict of ties.
timony, before the jury in this case
from which reasonable mon might draw
different conclusions; and as the jury
were the sole judges Of the evidence,
and as they were specially charged, not
10 regard any statement OF counsel not
supported by the evidences and as
there Is nothing before us to show that
any such statement, 10 nnywise affected
the verdict, within the we'll settled |
practice of this court the verdict should |
mot be disturbed for such reasons.
we. therefore, refuse to order |
new trial. /"