Patton v. Hughesdale Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 July 1875
• Citation: 11 R.I. 188
• Parties: JAMES PATTON v. HUGHESDALE MANUFACTURING CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

11 R.I. 188

JAMES PATTON v. HUGHESDALE MANUFACTURING CO.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 24, 1875

The entertainment of the jury by a party to the suit before it condemned.

A party consenting to a proceeding, which he might prevent by resisting it on account of irregularity, thereby waives all exceptions to such irregularity.

A verdict will not be set aside unless there is a strong preponderance of evidence against it.

DEFENDANT'S petition for new trial.

Benjamin N. Lapham & Andrew B. Patton, for plaintiff.

Samuel Currey & Albert R. Greene, for defendant.

MATTESON J.

The first ground upon which the defendant moves for a new trial is, " because after the empanelling of the jury in said cause, and whilst the jury were on the premises of the plaintiff for the purpose of viewing said premises under the direction of the sheriff, the plaintiff and his two sons - one of whom, James W. Patton, was a witness for the plaintiff in the cause, and took an active part in behalf of the plaintiff throughout the trial, and the other, Andrew B Patton, was associate counsel for the plaintiff in said trial - invited and took the jury in a body into a building upon the plaintiff's premises, then occupied by the plaintiff or the said James W. Patton as a store, and there entertained them with coffee and certain eat ables for the space of half an hour or more, having conversation with them the whole of said time apart from the defendant and his counsel."

The entertainment of the jury by the plaintiff and his sons ought not to have been permitted by the officer in charge of them it was highly improper, since its natural tendency was to predispose and bias the jury in favor of the plaintiff. It does not appear, however, that the plaintiff or his sons had any such intention, or that they took advantage of the opportunity to influence any of the jury against the defendant or in favor of the plaintiff. The invitation was given in the presence of Thomas H. Hughes and William H. Hughes, members of the defendant corporation, and Samuel Currey, its counsel; and though Thomas H. Hughes protested at the time to the counsel against the proceeding, the matter was not brought to the attention of the court till after the jury had returned their verdict for the plaintiff. In Tingley et al. v. City of Providence, 9 R.I. 388, this court recognized as a fixed rule of equity as well as law, " that where an irregularity...