Case Name: PRICE against LAMBERT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1809-05
Citations: 3 N.J.L. 534
Docket Number: 
Parties: PRICE against LAMBERT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 122–123

Head Matter:
PRICE against LAMBERT.
ON CERTIORARI.
Constable writing to jury “ that it is a clear case ” no cause for reversal.
The objection taken to the judgment below, was on the ground of the constable’s unlawfully interfering with the jury while out.
The cause was tried before the justice by a jury of six men. It appeared from the examination of one of the jurymen, taken before a commissioner of this court, that while the jury were out, five of the jurymen had agreed to find a verdict for the plaintiff below, Lambert; that one of the jury, to wit, the witness, did not agree with the other five for some time; that whilst they were debating, the constable came into [*] the room, and stayed perhaps four or five minutes; that while he was there, he wrote on a. piece of paper which he left on the table, “that it was a, dear ease.” The witness thinks that he wrote twice to the same eifeot. One of the jurymen said, while the constable was in the room, that the constable had a right to write his opinion, but not to speak it. This was after the constable had began to write. The constable did not state on which side he thought the case was clear; the witness thinks that there were some more words written on the paper, but cannot say what they were. The five of the jury had agreed to find for the plaintiff before the constable came into the room; and that the witness finally agreed to find for the plaintiff. That what the constable wrote had no effect on the mind of the witness, to induce him to find for the plaintiff That the writing was done by the constable of his own accord, and not at the request of any of the jurymen.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The conduct of the constable [402] was very reprehensible; but it appears that the plaintiff in certiorari did not suffer any injury by it; we do not think it sufficient cause to reverse the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.