Harvey v. Beard

• Decision Date: 07 January 1917
• Docket Number: 8911.
• Citation: 64 Colo. 410,172 P. 420
• Parties: HARVEY et al. v. BEARD.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

172 P. 420

64 Colo. 410

HARVEY et al. v. BEARD.

No. 8911.

Supreme Court of Colorado

January 7, 1917

Rehearing Denied May 6, 1918.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; A. Watson McHendrie, Judge.

Action by Charles L. Beard against Robert E. Harvey and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

John A Deweese and Isham R. Howze, both of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

James J. McFeely and M. B. Waldron, both of Denver, for defendant in error.

TELLER J.

Defendant in error recovered a judgment against plaintiffs in error in an action for malicious prosecution.

Errors are assigned on the giving and on the refusing of instructions, but it appears from the statement of the trial court, in overruling a motion for a new trial, that these errors were not argued on the hearing of said motion. The error argued then, and the only one seriously urged and discussed in the brief, is the denial of a new trial, a right to which was claimed on the ground that an attempt had been made to bribe a juror.

It appears that the foreman of the jury reported to the court that one of the jurors had disclosed the fact that he had been approached and offered a bribe to hang the jury. This report was made a short time before the jury agreed upon a verdict for the plaintiff. The court ordered an investigation to be made, heard the testimony of said juror of counsel on both sides, and of several other persons. The juror testified that a man came to his house in the evening and said to him, 'There is fifty in it if you can hang the jury, for we don't want that kid to have anything.' The man told the juror his name, and it appeared by the testimony of others that he had been in court on that day, and had been seen and heard in conversation with counsel for the defendants in that action. A citation was issued for the man, but he was not found, and never appeared during the investigation. The foreman of the jury stated in the presence of the other jurors that they were agreed that the incident had not influenced them to any extent whatever. The court found that the verdict had not been affected by the attempted bribery, that it had been made in the interest of the defendants--the unsuccessful party--and that it was not ground for a new trial. This court is committed to the doctrine that upon a question of misconduct by jurors, or of other persons with relation to jurors, the...