Mexico weekly ledger. (Mexico, Mo.) 1855-1956, 1901-07-18
MARY A. REED VS.. MEXICO = JUDGE
MiII.HANrYis OPINION

| hAhf A. REED VS., MEXICO - JUDGE
MiILHANEY's OPINION.
Special stress is laid on alleged mis-
conduct Of parties acting for the
plaintiff, in treating and conyersing
with the jury, and of the jury in ac-
cepting drinks and cigars, conversing
with witnesses, and playing cards,
during the recesses of the court.
The trial lasted three days. There
were many witnesses in town, and
they with the lawyers and several of
the jurors boarded at the same hotel,
and spent their spare time in the
combined office and saloon of the
hotel They were necessarily thrown
together during the recesses Of the
Court.
The aflidavits have been carefully
examined and compared. The facts
established by them are in substance
as follows:
The plaintiff, Mrs. Reed, accompain-
ed by her husband, William f. Reed,
hotel keeper of Moberly, and he
brought with him William Kelly, his
partner in the hotel saloon, James
Criswell, clerk of the hotel, and Will
liam Palmer, claim agent of the Wa
bash Railroad Company, resident of
Moberly. These gentlemen did not
appear as witnesses In the case but re-
manned in Clayton throughout the
trial. Although 1t is charged they
"took an active part' in the interest
Of plaintiff, conversed with the jurors,
treated them and bought drinks and
cigars for them.
These charges are denied by them
and jurors, except as TO Mr.. Kelly. The
fact is that he did treat to drinks and
cigars in the bar room, his invitations
being addressed TO all persons, witnes-
ses and Others and four Of the jurors
did In that way drink with him and
Others at the BAR but he did not sim
gle out any juror or set Of jurors or
treat them exclusively or separately.
This is the sum and substance Of all
the questionable conduct on the part
Of the plaintiffs and the jurors in
their relation 10 each other.
Each juror has made afiidavlt that
he did not mention the case out Of
court, that no one mentioned IL to
him, that he had no conversation con-
cerning 1t, and that he was not in
toxicated and saw none of the jurors
intoxicated.
On the other hand, each OF the four
jurors who drank or took cigars with
Mr.. Kelly, also did the same ON the
invitation of witnesses for the de-
fendant, and three other jurors admit
that they were treated by defendants
witnesses. But one of these accepted
the treat after the verdict. Ten of
the jurors went home at night. None
of them had ever seen the parties,
their witnesses or friends till at the
trial.
The witnesses for defendant who
are charged with having done the
treating, are the Mayor and two other
principal witnesses tLupton and
MooreD.
1t is the recollection of the Court,
that the jurors were at each recess ad-
monished not to discuss the case
among themselves or with others or
permit others to discuss the same in
their presence; that the jurors ap-
peared to conduct themselves proper
ly; and that none of them showed the
least sign of disorder or intoxicaton
during the progress of the trial.
There seems to have been little
generous rivalry between the citizens
Of Mexico and Moberly to make a good
showing away from home. 1t is diff
cult to say which was the more liberal.
But whatever was done seems to have
been regarded as proper enough till
one side lost.
Then came the suspicion that all OF
this treating might have been fair; for
something appeared Ito the losing
Isutorl to be wrong with the jury
Hence these numerous affidavits.
It does not appear that the plaintiff
was in any way responsible for the
Iacts of Mr.. Kelly or that he intention
Tally treated the jurors to influence
Them in their verdict. He seemed Z
be disposed to treat any and everybody
who was not disposed to decline his In
vitations.
The verdict ought not to be set asid'
therefore, for misconduct of the plain
Itif. Even If she had sanctioned tn
acts of Mr.. Kelly and they were inten
tIonally improper the rule requirinl
the verdict in such case to be set asid
as a punishment to the plaintiff 10
misconduct would probably not appi
for the reason that the effect would b
to reward the defendant for the sam
OHA~Y MA0I