Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-12-05
CLAIMS VERDICT
WAS By QU0T|[N|
Plaintiff in Ward Case Alleges
Illegal Method of Jury in
Returning Verdict.
PRESENTED TO THE COURT

Not Bound by Agreement to Abide
by the Quotient - An Interesting
Point in tho Street Car Damage Case
The attorneys interested in the case
Of John Ward VS.. the Marshalltown
Light, Power & Railway Company. the
action for $4,000 damages for person
al injuries, brought by Mr.. Ward
against the street car company for In
juries sustined by being struck with
one of the defendant companys cars,
argued the motion to set aside the YER
dict, filed by the plaintiff, late Saturday
afternoon. The plaintiff alleges an IL
legal procedure on the part of the jury
In arriving at verdict, in that the
members Of the Jury reached the ver-
dict by a quotient. The defense alleges
there was no agreement to abide by the
quotient, but that the quotient, as
reached, was afterward adopted.
Af1davits Of different. jurymen, pre-
sented by both sides. show that the
verdict in the case was the result of
quotient. The principal question that
seems to be involved is whether or not
it was decided by the jury beforehand
to abide by the quotient. The plains
tiff alleges this was the agreement en-
tered into by the jurymen, but the de-
Tense claims that the result was not
agreed to, even tho the quotient was
taken, and that the members of the
jury were not bound by any agreement
whatever, altho they afterwards de-
cided to adopt the result of the quo-
tient as the verdict.
The manner Of reaching the $67 YER
dict was. in brief, as follows: Each
juryman placed down the amount he
thought the plaintiff should recover,
with the understanding that the total
of the various amounts should be divi-
ded by twelve. It was also agreed that
no Juror should place more than $l00
as the amount, nor less than$1. The
result was that eight of the jury put
500. and four 81, which total, 1904
divided by twelve, resulted IN s61.
is for the court to decide now whether
or not it was the understanding be-
tween the jurymen to abide by the re-
suit Of the quotient, or that the agree
ment was made as to the verdict, With
out an understanding before the quot
lent was reached.
1r The argument of the plaintiffs at
torney was at considerable length, and
was in effect that the jury had been
guilty Of improper conduct IN return
ing the verdict in that it had agreed
to compromise. The attorney set forth
the method Of obtaining a verdict and
produced the affidavits Of Messrs. Ayre
and Wheelock, members OF the jury,
to substantiate their claim. The affi-
davits went to show that the jury had
agreed in advance that the verdict
should be arrived at In the manner
stated above.
No evidence, 1t was claimed by the
plaintiffs counsel, had been introduced
to support the verdict returned, which
was styled as ludicrous. and counsel
claimed the plaintiff was entitled to
something substantial, or nothing at
all.
The plaintiffs counsel also dwelt at
some length on the affidavits Of the
five jurors, James T. Doody, Charles
w. Brown, Z. Hepner, j. Z. Powers and
w. D. Presnel, filed by the defendant.
showing that $229.06 was the result Of
the first quottent, and $3.50
other. Three favored verdict for the
defense, but agreed to return verdict
for the plaintiff If the amount could be
agreed upon.
In closing, the plaintiffs counsel urg-
ed that the plaintiff was entitled to the
unbiased opinion Of each juryman, and
that the verdict should have been re-
turned after proper and due delibera-
ton, and not by the illegal method, as
claimed was resorted to in the quo
tient verdict The plaintiffs counsel
produced for the courts consideration
a case that had been reversed by the
supreme court, where it was claimed
uuotient verdict, similar to that In the
Ward case, was returned.
The Defendants Argument.
The argument OF the defense on the
mtoion was far more brief than the
plaintiffs. No illegality in reaching the
verdict was claimed in the quotient
for the defense alleged that the verdict
had been agreed to afterwards, even
tho It might have been found by quo
tient. The defendant admitted that
there was no evidence to support the
verdict, leaving a broad Inference that
there should have been verdict at all
for the plaintiff. The defendant also
claimed that there was no evidence to
show that there had been any perma-
nent injury; that no money had been
paid for doctor bills; also that the YER
dict could have been made $50 by al
lowing $3.50 per day for the actual time
lost by the plaintiff. All the damage
sustained has been allowed by the jury
unless for pain and suffering. The jur-
ors knew within a few dollars just
what the verdict would be as it had
been understood before the quotient
was made that eight or nine would vote
for $10o, and three or four for 81. All
the jurymen therefore, knew that the
verdict could not be more than 1903,
divided by twelve, and could see at
glance within a few dollars of lust
what the quotient would be. 1t was
finally agreed however, that SGT would
be the verdict, and the verdict was re-
turned accordingly.
The court in summing up the areu-
ments. stated that this question had
never been before him, since he had