Case Name: Chapman and Griggs v. Welles
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1786-09
Citations: 1 Kirby 133
Docket Number: 
Parties: Chapman and Griggs v. Welles.
Judges: Ellsworth, J., excused himself from judging in this case.
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 133–137

Head Matter:
Chapman and Griggs v. Welles.
An objection to a juror, which is not a ground for a principal challenge, shall not set aside the verdict.
Tuts was an action of book debt brought by Chapman and Griggs, in the capacity of assignees of George Caldwell, a bankrupt.
The general issue was pleaded, and a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Eoot and Mr. Larra,bee, counsel for the plaintiffs,
moved in arrest of judgment; and assigned for cause,— That the account on which the action was founded, consisted principally of moneys paid to the defendant, to have been by bim applied in payment of sundry executions, which, he, as deputy sheriff, had in his hands against said Caldwell; and that the defendant did not apply those moneys to the use intended, but Caldwell discharged the executions in another manner, and had received no benefit from those moneys which creates the debt against the defendant in this action: That one of the jurors who tried said cause was largely indebted on the boohs of said Caldwell, for moneys paid to him in the same manner, during a time in which he acted as constable of the town of Hartford; which account is warmly contested by said juror; therefore said juror was deeply interested in the point in question, which was a matter not known to the plaintiffs at the time of the trial: And also, that the jury were much divided in their sentiments, as to the legality of the charges in the plaintiffs’ account.
The motion in arrest overruled.

Opinion:
By Law, C. J., Sherman and Pitkin, JJ.
On inquiry, it does not appear that this juror was any way interested in the event of this cause, nor that there is any controversy subsisting between him and the plaintiffs respecting the account found in said Caldwell's book, nor that anything said respecting that account had influence with the jury in giving their verdict; and the book containing the account referred to was in the plaintiffs' hands, and by them exhibited on the trial; therefore, it must be presumed they knew the contents of it; and .if they had any exception to the juror, they ought to have challenged him before the trial; but as there appears no ground for a principal challenge, the objection ought not now to be admitted, to set aside the verdict.