Compton v. Arnold
| Decision Date | 31 October 1873 |
| Parties | PETER COMPTON, Plaintiff in Error, v. JAMES R. ARNOLD, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Washington Circuit Court.
G. I. Van Alen, for Plaintiff in Error.
I. It was error for the court to go into the jury room, and converse with the jurors about the case, in the absence of, and without the consent of, plaintiff. (Moody vs. Pomeroy, 4 Denio, 115, and cases cited.)
II. It was error to allow the jury, after they had been charged and sent out to their room, to separate and mix with the people and witnesses, and hear the case discussed out of court. (5 Cow., 283.)
Detchemendy & Arnold, for Defendant in Error.
I. The action of the judge, or the conduct of the juryman, constitutes no ground for reversing this judgment.
This action was brought before a Justice of the Peace to recover a mare, alleged to be of the value of seventy-five dollars, with damages for her unlawful detention.
The plaintiff recovered a judgment before the justice, from which the defendant appealed to the Washington Circuit Court. In the Circuit Court judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff has brought the case here by writ of error.
The only error insisted on in this court, as a ground for reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court, is the refusal of the Circuit Court to grant the plaintiff a new trial, upon his motion for that purpose. The ground relied on, in the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, was the misconduct of the judge who tried the cause, and of the jury while they were considering their verdict, after the case had been closed and submitted to them. It appears by the affidavits filed with the motion for a new trial, that the trial was closed and the case finally submitted to the jury about five o'clock in the evening, that, when the jury retired under the charge of an officer, the court took a recess until seven o'clock, when the court room was vacated; after this the jury for some reason occupied the court room. The judge of the court returned at seven o'clock, at which time neither of the parties were present. The judge opened the door of the court room, and finding the jury in the room, he spoke with some members of the jury, and finding that they had not agreed, he told the foreman of the jury, in presence of the officer who had them in charge, that if they agreed by ten o'clock, that they could seal up their verdict and return it into court in the morning; but if they failed to agree by ten o'clock, they might then retire to their respective rooms for the night, and he then directed the deputy sheriff to adjourn court until nine o'clock in the morning. It is farther shown by the affidavits, that the jury remained together up to ten o'clock at night, at which time they separated and went to their respective lodgings, where they remained until morning, when they assembled and made up a verdict and returned it into court. It is also shown, that one of the jurors, after the jury separated, called at a saloon, and remained there a short time, and that there were two persons in the saloon discussing the evidence in the case on trial, in hearing of the juror or where he might...
To continue reading
Request your trial