Case Name: Earl C. White & others vs. Eli Wood & others
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1851-10
Citations: 8 Cush. 413
Docket Number: 
Parties: Earl C. White & others vs. Eli Wood & others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 413–415

Head Matter:
Earl C. White & others vs. Eli Wood & others.
A deed, attested by two subscribing witnesses, who are both present in court, may be proved by the testimony of one of them, without calling the other.
Where one of the parties to a cause on trial, during a temporary adjournment of the court, told one of the jury that he had been home to get two deeds, which were afterwards used on the trial, this conversation was held to be no ground for a new trial on the motion of the other party.
This was a petition for partition of land, which the petitioners claimed to hold under a deed from Obed Richardson. At the trial before Merrick, J., in the court of common pleas, the petitioners produced the deed. One of the respondents, Leonard, required them to produce both the subscribing witnesses to the deed, they being both in court, one of whom was the attorney for the petitioners. The judge ruled that it was not necessary for the petitioners to call and examine both the witnesses, whereupon one was called by the plaintiffs and examined, but they declined to call the other, who offered himself to the respondents as a witness, if they desired to examine him.
During the trial, it was suggested that one of the petitioners had had a conversation with one of the jurors, who was then inquired of by the judge, as to the fact. The juror stated, that after the case had been commenced and some progress had been made, and after the court had adjourned to the next morning, he met Earl C. White, one of the petitioners, who told him that he had been obliged to go home, or had gone home, during the night, to get two deeds, which were subsequently produced and used on the trial. The judge remarked, that it did not appear to him that this conversation was such as to require any action of the court, or to warrant the removal of the juror from the jury. No objection was made by either party to proceeding, and no motion was made on the subject by either party, and the trial proceeded without objection. A verdict being rendered for the petitioners, the respondent Leonard excepted.
H. G. O. Colby, for Leonard.
N. Morlon, for the petitioner.

Opinion:
Dewey, J.
This case has been considered by the court in connexion with the case of Gelott v. Goodspeed, (ante, 411,) and the views expressed in the opinion given in that case fully sustain the ruling in the present, as given at the trial. Ordinarily, it is quite sufficient to call one of several subscribing witnesses to a deed, to prove its execution sufficiently to authorize the reading of it to the jury.
As to the other ground for a new trial, the communication made by one of the parties to a juror pending the trial, we see nothing to justify our interference for that cause. The communication was one that might have been made without any purpose to influence the juror, and there was nothing done calculated to bias his mind. Waiving all question as o the matter being one open to exception at all, we see no reason for setting aside the verdict for the communication made to the juror. Exceptions overruled.