Johnson v. Witt
| Decision Date | 05 November 1884 |
| Citation | 138 Mass. 79 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | H. J. Johnson v. E. C. Witt & another. Timothy Merrick v. Same |
Argued September 23, 1884.
Hampden.
Two actions of contract. The cases were tried together in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J.; and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in each case. On motion of the defendants for a new trial, the judge ruled that they were not entitled, as matter of law, to have the verdicts set aside, and, in the exercise of his discretion, declined to grant the motions; and, at the request of the defendants reported the cases for the determination of this court. The facts appear in the opinion.
Judgments on the verdicts.
W. H Brooks, for the defendants.
H. K. Hawes, for the plaintiffs.
OPINION
As a general rule, a motion for a new trial is addressed to the discretion of the presiding judge. It has been held that an improper intermeddling with the jury by a party in whose favor a verdict is rendered, or by an officer of the court, will be a ground for a new trial; and that the law will not inquire what was the effect of such intermeddling, if it was of such a nature as to have any tendency to affect the verdict injuriously to the party against whom it is found. Woodward v. Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453, and cases cited. Read v. Cambridge, 124 Mass. 567. But the rule of law does not go so far as to make every intermeddling with the jury by a stranger a conclusive ground for a new trial.
In each of the cases before us, after a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, a motion was made by the defendants for a new trial; and it was shown that, during the trial, one Allyn, a witness for the defendants, approached two of the jurors and said to them, "You are on our cases; keep your head level and do what is right." This was done without the knowledge of the defendants. It is proper to say, to prevent misconstruction, that, while the testimony of the jurors was admissible to prove what Allyn said to them, as that took place out of the juryroom, it was not competent to prove by their testimony what effect was produced upon their minds. Woodward v. Leavitt, ubi supra.
The case presented is one of an improper intermeddling with jurors, not by the plaintiff or by an officer of the court but by a stranger to the suit, who was a witness for the defendants. The remark made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Fidler
...statements they made, or the motives which influenced them, in their private deliberations. Id. at 466, 467, 471. Compare Johnson v. Witt, 138 Mass. 79, 80 (1884). The rule of Woodward v. Leavitt remains the applicable law in this Commonwealth, Commonwealth v. Harrison, 2 Mass.App.Ct. 775, ......
-
Cronberg Brothers v. Johnson
... ... 348; Cokin v. State, 20 Ark. 53.) ... Where ... counter affidavits show that no prejudice resulted from the ... alleged misconduct of the jury, a new trial should not be ... granted. ( Nicholson v. State, 18 Wyo. 314; ... Woodward v. Leviatt, 107 Mass. 453; Johnson v ... Witt, 138 Mass. 79; State v. Gay, 18 Mont. 51, ... 44 P. 411; State v. Lawrence, 70 Vt. 324; State v ... Cotts, 49 W.Va. 615, 39 S.E. 605.) ... The ... contention that Section 4498 C. S. 1910 is mandatory is ... without merit, in view of the fact that it was enacted as a ... ...
-
Lee v. State
...605; Cook v. State, 38 So. 113; Weaver v. State (Ala.), 86 So. 179; K. C. M. & B. R. R. Co. v. Phillips, 98 Ala. 159, 13 So. 65; Johnson v. Witt, 138 Mass. 79; McCann v. State, 9 & M., 468; 16 C. J. 1074. W. A. Shipman, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state. All indictments shall be tri......
-
Commonwealth v. White
...to by Ross, as that was a conversation between jurors outside of the court-house. Woodward v. Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453;Johnson v. Witt, 138 Mass. 79;Heffron v. Gallupe, 55 Me. 566, KENT, J.; Deacon v. Shreve, 22 N.J.Law, 176; Wright v. Telegraph Co., 20 Iowa, 198;Rowe v. Canney, 139 Mass. 42;......