Case Name: Talmadge et al. v. Northrop
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1793-01
Citations: 1 Root 522
Docket Number: 
Parties: Talmadge et al. v. Northrop.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 522–523

Head Matter:
Talmadge et al. v. Northrop.
If a juryman gives evidence out of court to liis fellows, which was not given in court it will vitiate the verdict.
Action of the case; declaring, that in A. D. 1789, they sold a number of horses to one Luman Bishop, on credit, to the amount of’about £51, for which he took said Luman’s note; "that judgment and execution had been recovered on said note; that before said judgment was" recovered said Luman was banknipt, and had absconded out of -this state, ■ and said exe cution was duly returned non est inventus; that the defendant at the time of the sale of said horses to said Luman, was in partnership with him in the purchase of horses, and received the plaintiffs’ said horses, shipped them to the West Indies and received the avails, and had secretly contrived with said Luman, knowing him to he a bankrupt, to purchase the plaintiffs’ horses on his own credit, for the joint benefit of both, etc. Damage £100.
Plea — -Not guilty. Issue to the jury. Verdict for the defendant.
Motion in arrest of judgment — That a Mr. Patterson, one of the jury, gave evidence to his fellows, while they had the cause under consideration, which was not given in court, viz. That he was coming through Warren, the place where the horses were sold, when Colonel Talmadge and his brother were selling them to Luman Bishop; and he wondered that Colonel Talmadge trusted him, as he lived within six miles of him, and must have known his circumstances; for that said Patterson, would not trust said Bishop himself: Burther alleging, in the motion, that the representation of the juryman, was not true, for that Colonel Talmadge, was not at Warren, when, the horses were sold by his brother; and knew nothing of it until sometime after.

Opinion:
The court inquired of the jury and found the facts alleged in the motion to be true; and the verdict was set aside, and the cause continued for another trial.