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

SUPREME COURT pgcvosso1t.
kEs 500
Continued from I'd page 8
May LIST, 1884, and ever since has bean
and now il the owner in the possession
of I'll veins. ]odes, and lodges Ut
quartz or other rock In place hearng
gold and silver and other metals.
throughout their entire depth. the top
face boundary lflSs lef 94id three /
claims extended 1aShsxisas vertically.
and also 40EHeh6. dips " saklf veinsAF
veins AMI al the " IL GafA veins on(
their Tin. betveen 1ullnes / extending
through the end iinsS 81 such claims
in their own direction
This court modified the instruction
by inserting after thu. words, and ala0
words as G1S1ibs1h bas1 "a In1S
of each Of said claims"
The requirement that the mineral
veinsi should pa41 Through sboth end
lines is erroneous. 1t must be conceded
Ia dttade6.ss tbe QelmQnte case M
U. 8: so She4 4A ninef nass wv ,t
10 1O41OW ul6 VSAu VA AID Wy OuSoAVS -
his vertical side lines whether the vein
ever in It'll e6NfSe. reaches FRS --end
jnea pr not The modification was i'm
material to any issue and could not
have misled the jury. No question
touchinge9the right to follow the vein
or the right to the. possession Of ore
depended upon the qualification that
the mineral deposit should pass
through both end lines of claim The
controlling question and upon which
the case was tried was whether the
General Thomas NO.A3 and the Chief
of the Hill was upon the same ledge.
If they were not, plaintiff had no
cause of action. h .|''
This is shown by instruction No. 6
given at the request of appellant.
1t is as follows
1T is entirely immaterial what Is
the course or dip of any vein In the
Northern Belle, First Easterly Exten-
sion and General Thomas No.
claims, unless you believe from a pre-
ponderence of the evidence that the
ore here in dispute was taken from
the Chief of the Hill vein from the
dip thereof"
Appellants produced the affidavl.s
of two OF the jurors tending to show
that the jury agreed that each juror
should write upon a separate slip O
paper the amount of damages he de
sired to award plaintiff, and that tn
sum of the several estimates should y
divided by eleven-the number CON
prising the jury-and the QuOtien
should be the amount of the verdict
Counter affidavits we're fled, but tn
conclusion we have reached render
their consideration unnecessary. A
common law affidavits of jurors coul
not be received to impeach their We,
dict, but could be admitted in it's SUI
port.
Rex VS.. Alnun. Bur. 1885,
VASE vs.. Delaral. Term, II.
Owen VS.. WarburtUn, Ros m
Pull, 326.
Turner VS.. Tuolumne, rs Cal. 80
Davis VS.. Taylor, 2 Chitty 268.
In Dalrymple VS.. Williams 63, N.
367, it is said:
There are reasons OF public polio
why jurors should not be heard
iimpeach their verdict, whether
showing their mistakes or their mi
conduct Neither can they properly
permitted to declare with a view
affect their verdict, an intent dilfere
from that actually expressed by the
verdict as rendered in open court
early times the pains and penalti
visited upon the Jurors for false W
diets furnished an additional reas,
why they should not be allowed
impeach them. Watts VS.. Brains, G.
Eliz. 77S. But the rule is well ests
lished, and at this day rests upon W
understood reasons of public poll
as connected with the administrati
of justice, that the court will not
ceive the afidavits of jurymen
prove misconduct on their part, or a
act done by them which could te
to impeach or overthrow their "
dict. This rule excludes afidavits
show mistake or error Of the tur(
in respect to the merits. or irregul
ity or misconduct, or that they mistO
the effect Of their verdict or intend
something different.
1T is admitted, Notwithstanding
few adjudications to the contrary, tt
it is now well settled, both in Engla
and with the exception of Tennes.
perhaps. in every State of this C
federacy that such affidavit cannot
received, and we believe upon corr
reasoning. If it were otherwise,
few verdicts could stand. 1t would OF
Tie WlUOSL UOOT LOT CnOlCSS IlClRaLl
fraud and perjury and is condemn
by the clearest principles of just
and public policy"
3. Graham vs. Waterman on n
Trials, 1929 The following reas
are given by the same authors v
afidavits Of jurors should not be
ceived; LIST. Because they would t
to defeat their own solemn acts un
oath. I'd. Because their admiss
would open a door to tamper v
jurymen after they had given Il
verdict. Sd. Because they would
lne means, In the hands Of q disss
ned juror, to destroy a verdict at
time after he assented to it. D. 142
In q learned note to Crawford
State, 2 Yeager, so, "a Am. Dec.
the author says: These reasons,
sidered in connection with the
that It has always been the polio,
the law to keep the deliberation.
jurors secret, and to allow Jurors
arrive at their own conclusions Y