Case Name: WILLIAM AMSBY, DAVID HAMILTON, WILLIAM TARLETON, PAUL FINNE, CHARLES WELLER and HOSGRAVES, Respondents, v. DICKHOUSE, JAMES ANDERSON, E. RHEA, Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1854-01
Citations: 4 Cal. 103
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM AMSBY, DAVID HAMILTON, WILLIAM TARLETON, PAUL FINNE, CHARLES WELLER and HOSGRAVES, Respondents, v. DICKHOUSE, JAMES ANDERSON, E. RHEA, Appellants.
Judges: Mr. J. Heydeneeldt and Wells concurred.
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 103–104

Head Matter:
WILLIAM AMSBY, DAVID HAMILTON, WILLIAM TARLETON, PAUL FINNE, CHARLES WELLER and HOSGRAVES, Respondents, v. DICKHOUSE, JAMES ANDERSON, E. RHEA, Appellants.
Vebdict cannot be Impeached by Jubob. — A juror cannot be allowed to impeach his own verdict.
New Tbial — when not Geanted. — Where there is a conflict of testimony, a verdict should not he disturbed, except on sufficient legal reasons.
Appeal from the Tenth Judicial District.
This was an action for the recovery of a mining claim.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiffs * moved for a new trial; and, among others, assigned the following reasons for a new trial, which were deemed by the Court sufficient for granting the motion:
1st. Improper conduct on the part of the jury. To support this allegation, one of the jurors was introduced as a witness, who stated he was very averse to finding the verdict; that if there had been a third party, he would have been in favor of giving them the ground in preference to either plaintiffs or defendants; that one of the jurors in the jury room came to him, and endeavored to influence his verdict, by stating the plaintiffs were a parcel of gamblers, who were trying to get the claims from honest miners.
2d. Insufficiency of evidence to justify the verdict.
The defendants appealed.
Dana, Rowe, Glvwrchman & McKinley, for Appellants.
No brief on file for Eespondents.
Approvedin Boyce v. Cal. Stage Co. 25 Cal. 475. See People v. Baker, 1 Cal. 405; Castro v. Gill, 5 Cal. 42; Wilson v. Berryman, Id. 45; People v. Wyman, 15 Cal. 70.

Opinion:
Mr. Ch. J. Murray
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. J. Heydeneeldt and Wells concurred.
It is well settled that a juror cannot be allowed to impeach his own verdict. The reason of this wholesome rule of law is too obvious to require any explanation.
The Court below erred in setting aside the verdict of the jury, and granting a new trial, upon the affidavit of a juror of his own and his fellow juror's misconduct.
Aside from this, there appears to have been a conflict of testimony, and the jury having passed upon the facts, it was improper to disturb their verdict, except upon sufficient legal reasons.
The order for a new trial is reversed, with costs.