Appeal of James
| Decision Date | 16 December 1910 |
| Citation | 78 A. 420,83 Conn. 702 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Appeal of JAMES. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; George W. Wheeler, Judge.
Proceedings by Sylvester P. Bowen, Executor, and others, for the probate of the will of Frances Emily Cox, deceased. From an order and decree of the court of probate admitting the will to probate, Jennie James appeals. Affirmed.
Edward M. Lockwood, for appellant.
Michael Kenealy and John F. Keating, for appellee.
This action is an appeal from an order admitting to probate the will of Frances Emily Cox, which was tried to the jury in the superior court in Fairfield county. The reasons of appeal alleged mental incapacity and that undue influence was exercised over the testatrix.
The trial to the jury was commenced on Thursday, February 3, 1910, and continued on Tuesday, February 8, Wednesday, February 9, and Thursday, February 10, 1910. On Monday, February 7, 1910, while this trial was pending, there appeared in the Stamford Advocate, a daily newspaper published at Stamford, Conn., an article given to the newspaper for publication by Homer S. Cummings, who was the attorney for the appellees, and who as such attorney was then engaged in the trial of this case. The newspaper article began with this heading: "Cummings defends criticised jury." It had reference to a McCann Case (76 Atl. 1003) in which the jury rendered a verdict of $300 for the death of a boy killed by an automobile, and also to a case following, in which they rendered a verdict for $500 for injuries due to a collision with an automobile in which the injured person lost a couple of teeth. In the McCann Case, the judge, upon his own motion, immediately set the verdict aside. The jury rendering this verdict were thereafter severely criticised and ridiculed by the press of the state. Nine of the jurors in the present action were also jurors who tried the McCann Case. Mr. Cummings was the attorney for the prevailing party in the McCann Case, but was not interested in the action in which the jury rendered the verdict of $500. This newspaper article also stated that Mr. Cummings, among other things said: "There is, therefore, nothing extraordinary in the verdict, and no reason for indulging in adverse criticism against men who have conscientiously done their duty to the best of their ability and with far greater knowledge of the case than is possessed by those who have criticised them."
On Thursday, February 10, 1910, in chambers. Mr. Lockwood, the attorney for the appellant, handed the judge presiding at the trial a copy of this interview as it appeared copied in the Norwalk Hour. After the matter had been fully discussed by the court and counsel, the court inquired of Mr. Lockwood if he wanted anything done in respect thereto. Mr. Lockwood replied that so far as he was concerned he did not request that any action be taken in court. At this time, it was not brought to the court's attention, nor appear to it, that the newspaper article in question bad actually been seen by any of the jury.
After this discussion between the court and counsel, the trial was resumed. The court, in its charge to the jury, did not refer to the article, and the case was committed to the jury without any further action by either court or counsel as to the matter. While the jury were deliberating upon their verdict, the attorney for the appellant ascertained that one of the jurors had procured ten copies of the Stamford Advocate containing this interview with Mr. Cummings, and had taken the same to the jury room. Immediately following the rendition and acceptance of the verdict for the appellee the attorney for the appellant for the first time called the court's attention to these facts, and requested that the jurors, before being discharged, should be examined, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to support a motion which he proposed making to set aside this verdict on account of these facts. Such motion was subsequently reduced to writing, fully heard, and denied because the impropriety claimed was known to the applicant before verdict, and that she deliberately refused to request the court to take any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Evans
...interfere only in those cases where the discretion was clearly exceeded or abused to the manifest injury of some party. James v. Bowen, 83 Conn. 702, 706, 78 A. 420. The failure, here, to take exception to the remarks at the time they were made or at the close of the argument constituted a ......
-
State v. Rosa
...Ink Co., 157 Conn. 445, 452, 254 A.2d 907; Cascella v. Jay James Camera Shop, Inc., 147 Conn. 337, 343, 160 A.2d 899; James v. Bowen, 83 Conn. 702, 706, 78 A. 420. Although it is preferable for a state's attorney to limit his closing argument to a rebuttal of issues raised in the defendant'......
-
Berry v. Loiseau
...counsel's comments before the jury are so prejudicial as to necessitate the declaration of a mistrial. See, e.g., James v. Bowen, 83 Conn. 702, 706, 78 A. 420 (1910) (trial court is invested with a large discretion over arguments of counsel and " 'conduct of the trial in other respects' ").......
-
Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co.
...or abused to the manifest injury of some party. Cascella v. Jay James Camera Shop, Inc., 147 Conn. 337, 343, 160 A.2d 899; James v. Bowen, 83 Conn. 702, 706, 78 A. 420.' Bryar v. Wilson, 152 Conn. 162, 165, 204 A.2d 831, 832; Intelisano v. Greenwell, supra, 155 Conn. 436, 442, 232 A.2d 490.......