Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-12-08
Handed Down by Justice
Whiteh0use.
ca ses in Androscoggin, Knox
Oxford and York Counties.
imoortant Matters Upon Which hisn'
est Court Has Passed.
Androscoesin County.

MARY r.. fttlCIltI, <1t'iiH'' '"'
Estes. Rescript. Whitehouse' }.
The plaintiff had a verdict returhe'
against her by the jury. ana no" piiheo
the case to this court on motioh "
set aside the verdict by reason OF the
alleged misconduct Of two Of the jurors
before whom the case was tired anu ol
one OF the witnesses for the defense.
II appears from the testimony that at
the noon recess the witness in question:
who was an employee of the Defendant
and had testified in behalf OF ms EN-
Mover. repeated the substance OF MS
testimony in response TO an inquiry
from q Juror on the other panel, and
,h,, his statements were listened to by
the two Jurors named in the motion VIII"
were members of the jury engaged in
the trial Of the plaintin case. Ihere
is no evidence, however, that he ad-
dressed any Of his conversation 10
either Of these two Jurors. or that ne
had any knowledge that any OF the
Jurors sitting on that case were listen
ing to his statements. Nor Is there
any evidence that these statements
were made by the witness either by the
procurement or with the knowledge OF
the defendant himself. But it does APP
pear from the testimony that the two
jurors in question listened to the state
mrnts Of the witness. made after the
adjournment OF the court. in relation
10 the case on trial before them. These
statements may have been only ii re-
capitulatiOn of the testimony given by
the witness on the stand, as suggested
a. n l,tIf not nor
or not in the unrestricted form in
which they were uttered out of court
they would have been legitimate EVIL
dence IL offered in the regular course
Of the trial under the rules of law, was
- question upon which the plaintiff had
right to be heard before the court.
II may be true, also that these jurors
listened to these statements out OF
court without any understanding on
their part that they were guilty of any
improperly i'm so doing. But section
10 of chapter 123 of the Revised Stat
utes makes il a criminal offense for a
juror to receive any information or ev-
idence relating to any matter for the
trial of which he is sworn, without the
authority of the court and without i'm
The mischievouS consequence would
probably be the same whatever may
have been the motives which actuated
the witness in making the statements
or the jurors in listening To them. 4
decent regard for the proper admins
tratiOn of justice cOmptls the court not
only to hold parties responsible for
their own misconduct. but for the in
discretions Of their friends in convey
ing to jurors private information re-
ltting to a case on trial before them
Such Irregularities are sternly dis
COuntenanced by the courts. aud jurors
are admonished that in receiving evil
dence or information in this manner
they are not only acting In violation OF
their oaths and of the statutes of the
State. but are doing injury and injus-
tice to both parties to the suit :-injus-
tice to him who has lost the verdict in
the court below, and injury to his op.
ponent who will lose IL in this court if
the objection is insisted upon and ha.
not been waived.
But II appears from the positive ties
timOny of the messenger Of the court
introduced by the plaintiff as his prin
cipal witness In support of this motion
that all Of the information now pre-.
scented to the court In relation to an,
misconduct on the part of the jurors in
this case was communicated to the
senior counsel for the plaintiff before
the jury retired to consider their yer.
dict. The attorney. 1t is true, has the
impression that this information did
not come to him until after the verdic,
was returned: but while the integrity
Of both witnesses is unquestioned, it is
the opinion of the court that the mere
impression" of the attorney is not suf-
fcient to overbalance the clear and
emphatic statement of his own witness
who gave him the information, and thai
1t must therefore be deemed an estab.
iished fact that the plaintiffs counsel
had knowledge of the alleged miscon.
duct before the jury retired. As tn.
plaintiff did not then choose to insis
upon the objection. and to have thos,
jurors set aside, and new jury EN-.
paneled to try the case, but on the con
trary went on and closed the trial. anf
took his chance Of obtaining a verdic
In his favor. we think the objectio,
must be regarded as waived and that /
now comes too late.
Motion overr,lled.
Reed. Dec. 5th, 1904.