Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-10-04

Ser ,s'E. !. @"
N. ;sclms 81 P.c. ss4> and Mon.
ta41 (0Qf66n ". Treventhan, Is Mont
~ u AaSh similar statutes. See also
0finne1 VI Phillips. Mass, $50; Far
rsF w. the State 2 Ohio st. 81.
Aside from the 4Tennessee -casea.
contrary decisions can be found IN
Iowa, go Iowa 1861 and one in Kan
sas. (Pefry w. Bailey, II Kan. 1897.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Belknap. J.
Belknap. c. J.
l dissent. ~ e.
Fitzgerald, j.
Z. wish to concur specially in the
opinion of the Chief Jdstice in the
IMPORTANT matters OF practice relating
to Auotient verdicts and the inadmissi-
bil3ty Of the anldavits Of Jurors under
thu circumstances existing in this
HE aa,davits of some ID TIE jurors
stsfe that, They all agreed that each
on$ Of said Jurors should ballot BY
writing upon separate slips Of PAPER,
tho amount of damages he desired TO
award said plaintiff: and that after
tsaid amounts should be 20 written and
| p.hote4 that 1aid several Amounts
! s...aanid be added together ana 1ne total
| SUN so arrived at should be divided
bys eleven. the number Of Jurors con-
stftuting the jury, and that the amount
10 found and arrived at should control
land fix the amount of the verdict to
ibe awarded to, and in favor of plain
ltin."
I Another Juror Takes afidavit, THAT
twhile it is true that such Jurors all
Iagreed that each one should ballot by
writing upon separate slips of paper
the amount of damages he desired to
award said plaintiff and that after said
amount should be so written and bal
loted said several amounts should be
aided together and the total sum so ar
rived at divided by eleven, the number
OF jurors constituting the jury, an.
, that the amount so found and arrived
, at should control and fix the amour
of the verdict to be awarded to ant
in favor of plaintiff, that notwithstand
ing said agreement and after said bal
e lot had been so written and ballOtet
4 and the sum added together and divid
e ed by eleven, this affiant and each D
the jurors in said case did freely an
S fully agree upon the verdict whic
Y was rendered in said case and di
r freely and fully agree upon the amour
L to be awarded to said plaintiff, IRE
= spective of said ballOting, and di
= freely and fully agree and award sal
e plaintiff the sum Of $4,000" Consi,
i ering the sum allowed, $500 90 is
It small variation, but sufficient to sho
t. that the jurors and especially thos
re who favored a lesser sum we're NJ
IS entirely controlled or bound by th
1t quotient which likely induced the,
d to find for the nearest amount in eve
r thousands. The jury had two impo
p tant issues to determine. One rel1ts
!. to the ownership Of the ledge fro
which the ore was extracted, and u
der the conflicting testimony they,
Id tine requisite number, must have foul
in favor of the plaintiff, and after tn
" farrived at this conclusion it became
combent on them to determine t
T., amount of damages which should
awarded against the defendant. O
y, o. the jurors put down nothing
to making up the quotient. II this be CT
ny sidered unreasonably low, it was fav'
Is able to the defendant and it cam
be complain, but it was his privilege
to find for the defendant under the &
mt fiicting evidence regarding the own
cir ship of the ledge.
In A few cases hold without uualifi,
les ton, that Quotient verdicts should
er- set aside but the better authorit
on sustain their validity, unless the jurt
TO agree in advance to be hound by I
70, amount. Whether they so agree or I
ABB no good reason appears to reject
ell quotient verdict, If each juror p,
Icy down sum. within the issue and 81
ION ported by the evidence which he c.
re- scientiously believes should be ava
to ed. Some able opinions, such u Il
my of Jude SandersOn speaking for
md court in Turner VS.. TuOlumne, supp
er- these verdicts as being a mean a
TO average of the amount of DANA,
ovs which the different Jurors in their
lar tural varying judgments believe sho
)ok be awarded. Other DECISIONS are to
led effect that such verdicts should
vacated if the jurors so agreed in
, a vance because some juror might
hat down an extravagantly high or
and amount. II admitted that the result
see such fraud when practiced by
on and accepted by the other jurors sho
be vitiate the verdict which it var
'ect when this fact or reason for such I
but fails the rule itself should not APP
pen and in cases where such fraud is
ion. petrated and it is shown that ju
ned put down an extravagant amount,
tice verdict should be set aside. but
would be no reason for vacating
lew diets in other cases where no juro
ons guilty of such conduct and where
why verdict is an average of the differ
&c amounts which the several jurors |
end estly believe should be awarded
lder the affidavits of jurors were to be
sion !sidered at all. it would be only wi
With the juror designates a sum design
heir Tor unreasonably high or lov, or wi
be 1t is not within the issue or supr
ATS ed by the evidence, and this franc
any mistake is practiced or made by
q. of the jurors and allowed by the
vs. hers to vary the quotient and am,
467, returned SO it is not an average of
con. different estimates which { = tho h.,