Case Name: Durell against Mosher
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1811-10
Citations: 8 Johns. 445
Docket Number: 
Parties: Durell against Mosher.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 445–445

Head Matter:
Durell against Mosher.
Where a juror, cause before a the re^“¡ghbourswere p®”^’ *asde' "¡la®“|fl-andastIie right,” this was held not to be a sufficient objecsworn* and em-
action of defend ant promised to return the gouds to the plaintiff; and that lie had nf,t returned ^¡'ent’ evidence and °a* previous ‘lemaud an? re: fusal, need not 1,6 proved,
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.
Mosher brought an action of trover against Durell, before the justice, for sheep.
A venire was issued, and returned, and the defendant objected to two of the jurors on the panel, that they had sat as jurors on a former trial between the parties, as to the same subject matter of controversy: but it appeared, that that cause had been dismissed, without any verdict . . . . being given, and the justice, therefore, admitted the jurors, in this cause. The defendant then objected to another juror, because that he had said, in a conversation about the controversy, that the defendant was wrong and the plaintiff was right: but it was also proved, that ‘ 1 e ' 1 he, at the same time, said, that he had no personal know-i* r, * . . • n i r ledge or the matter in dispute, but that ir the reports of the neighbours were correct, the defendant was wrong and the plaintiff was right. The justice admitted the juror as competent. r
On the trial, it was proved, that the defendant below had taken two sheep and two lambs out of the flock of the plaintiff, supposing they belonged to him, the defendant ; and that he had, afterwards, promised to return the sheep to the plaintiff, but had failed to do so.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for eight dollars.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The objection to the jurors was unfounded. The third juror objected to, had given no decided opinion on the merits of the cause. His declaration was hypothetical. Though a demand and refusal of, the sheep was not proved; yet the promise by the defendant to return them, and a failure to do so, was evidence of a conversion. The judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.