Platt v. Threadgill

• Decision Date: 17 April 1897
• Citation: 80 F. 192
• Parties: PLATT v. THREADGILL.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

80 F. 192

PLATT v. THREADGILL.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Virginia.

April 17, 1897

Beverly T. Crump, for plaintiff.

Kirkpatrick & Blackford, for defendant.

SIMONTON Circuit Judge.

F. M Threadgill obtained a verdict against Thomas C. Platt representing the United States Express Company, on the law side of this court, at Lynchburg, 27th April, 1895, in the sum of $54,371. Judgment was entered and exceptions were taken, but the appeal was not perfected in time for the circuit court of appeals. A levy having been made under execution on this judgment, it was stayed; the defendant entering into bond, with sureties, conditioned in the alternative, for the payment of the said judgment on or before the 15th April, 1896, or the obtaining of a writ of error or supersedeas thereon on or before that date. This bill is now filed to enjoin said judgment, and to enjoin proceedings upon the said bond. Afterwards, and by leave, an amended bill was filed, setting up yet other grounds for enjoining the judgment. The facts which are recognized and admitted on both sides are that pending the trial of the action at law, during the afternoon of the day preceding the day on which the case was submitted to the jury, some of the jurymen were present at and heard a conversation between one Bowden, the agent of the plaintiff, and a deputy marshal, in which the latter suggested that the former should treat to cigars. They heard his response that he was perfectly willing to do so, if a visit was paid to his place of business, and they thought that they were included in the invitation. After the court had adjourned for the day, three of the jury started to seek the place of business of Bowden, accompanied by a fourth juror, who was going in the same direction, but not to the same place. On their way they either overtook or met the plaintiff, and telling him their purpose, asked where Bowden's place of business was. Plaintiff replied that his place of business was in the same building as that of Bowden, and that he would show them where it was. He went along with them. On the way he endeavored to show them into a church building in which he was interested, and, failing to enter, he continued with them to Bowden's place of business. The fourth juror, who was with them, did not go to Bowden's. The others, with plaintiff, did go, however. When they reached the store, plaintiff told the brother of Bowden the purpose of the jurors, and instructed him to get a sample box of cigars, 25 in the box. He received the box; gave two of the jurors 9 cigars each, and the box with 7 cigars to the other juror. They waited about five minutes in the store, and then went out. On their way they met the fourth juror, and he was offered a cigar, which offer he declined. The cause of action in the pending suit was a lot of cigars, and an important question in assessing the damages recoverable was the character, quality, and value of the cigars. The bill charges that this communication with the jury had in this way tended to influence their verdict, was grossly improper, and that the verdict rendered so soon after it occurred should be set aside.

The trial by jury was instituted to secure an impartial tribunal of the issues of fact in a case. The jurors are kept as far as possible from all extraneous influences. And although the rigidity of the common-law practice has been relaxed, and now jurors are not kept secluded from possibility of such influences, still every precaution is taken to prevent them from reaching the jury. And, in so far as the absolute seclusion of the jury under the common law has been relaxed just so far should the moral restriction substituted in its stead to be enlarged and enforced. The jury are instructed to try every case according to the evidence. They are sworn to do so. The evidence before them is always delivered under oath or affirmation. Every fact submitted to them is brought out by examination and cross-examination. Every question by which such fact is elicited must be put in the presence of counsel, is subjected to the scrutiny of counsel and to discussion by them of its competency or relevancy, and, if any dispute arises, it is decided by the court. This examination is controlled by rules of evidence, a violation of which, even with the sanction of the court, will be ground for a new trial. Testimony is taken only before a full jury, and the rule is inflexible that nothing goes to them except in the presence of all. Private communications, possibly prejudicial, between jurors and third persons or witnesses or the officer in charge, are absolutely forbidden, and invalidate the verdict, at least until their harmlessness is made to appear. Mattox v. U.S., 146 U.S. 150, 13 Sup.Ct. 50. 'The rule is that the slightest tampering with the jury during the trial or prior to it, by a party, or the agent or attorney of a party, in whose favor the verdict has been rendered, is, on ground of public policy, good cause for setting aside the verdict, without reference to the merits of the case, and without considering whether the attempt to poison the sources of justice was or was not successful. On this point Hawkins says: ' The law so abhors all corruption of this kind that it prohibits anything which has the least tendency to it, what specious pretense soever it may be covered with, and therefore it will not suffer a mere stranger so much as to labor a juror to appear and act according to his conscience.' Although this...