Case Name: GREGORY et al. v. BIJOU THEATER CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-05-04
Citations: 122 N.Y.S. 1085
Docket Number: 
Parties: GREGORY et al. v. BIJOU THEATER CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 122
Pages: 1085–1087

Head Matter:
GREGORY et al. v. BIJOU THEATER CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
May 4, 1910.)
New Trial (§ 145 )—Impeachment of Verdict—Affidavit Upon Information from Juror.
As the misconduct of jurors in reading the judge’s minute book and making its contents known to their colleagues could not be sworn to by a juror to impeach his verdict, it could not be shown for such purpose by an affidavit of a third person upon information from such juror.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see New Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 300, 301; Dec. Dig. § 145. ]
Kellogg and Sewell, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Ulster County.
Action by John H. Gregory and another against the Bijou Theater 'Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and from an order granting a new trial plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed, and motion denied.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, COCHRANE, SEWELL, and HOUGHTON, JJ.
Arthur C. Connelly (Howard Chipp, of counsel), for appellants.
William D. Brinnier, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic &,§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SMITH, P. J.
This action was tried before the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. A motion for a new trial was made under section 999 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was denied. Thereafter judgment was entered. After the entry •of judgment the defendant made a motion to set aside the verdict upon the ground of misconduct of the jury, which motion was granted. The affidavit upon which the motion was granted was made by the defendant's counsel. It recites the trial, the verdict, and the motion for a new trial, its denial, and the judgment. It then recited upon information from the county judge and belief that at the adjournment of the •court upon that day the county judge left his minute book, in which he had taken some minutes of the trial, upon the bench in the courtroom. It further recited upon information from one of the jurors that "two of the jurors thereafter came into possession of that minute book and read it and made known its contents to his colleagues, who dis•cussed the same. This was the irregularity complained of.
If these facts were properly shown, the order would seem to have "been justified. Mitchell v. Carter, 14 Hun, 448. The fact that the jurors at any time had access to these minutes or opportunity to read them, and the fact that they were so read, is shown only by an affidavit based upon information from one of the jurors. That this cannot be so shown seems to have been held in Mais v. Ruh, 57 App. Div. 15, 67 N. Y. Supp. 1051. It hardly seems necessary to cite authority to "the proposition that facts which cannot be sworn to by a juror to im;peach his verdict cannot be shown by a third person upon information trom that juror. Nor is it necessary to decide whether proof is neces•.sary that the reading of these minutes influenced the minds of the jury. Plaintiffs could have produced the affidavits of the jurors to negative these facts, but was not bound to do so until defendant had produced some legal evidence of the fact that the jury had access to these minutes and in fact read them.
For this reason we think the order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.
Order reversed, with $10 costs "and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. All concur, except KELLOGG, J., .dissenting in opinion in which SEWELL, J., concurs.