Ridenour v. City of Clarinda

Decision Date13 December 1884
PartiesRIDENOUR v. CITY OF CLARINDA
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Appeal from Page Circuit Court.

ACTION for a personal injury received by plaintiff by falling upon a sidewalk, by reason of the same being obstructed by snow and ice, and dangerous to travel, as is alleged. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Clark & Parslow and N. B. Moore, for appellant.

Hepburn & Thummel and W. W. Morsman, for appellee.

OPINION

ROTHROCK, CH. J.

The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, one ground of which was the alleged misconduct of one of the jurors who tried the case. The motion was supported by three affidavits, one of which is as follows: "I, W. C. Stillians, on oath, do say that I am a resident of Clarinda, and that I am acquainted with Horace Pratt, who was a member of the jury that tried the cause of N. C. Ridenour v. The City of Clarinda; that shortly before the said cause was submitted to said jury, and while it was pending, I was present with him in John Burrows' drug-store, in Clarinda, and while he was present the merits of the case were fully discussed in his presence and hearing; that I myself said, in his presence, that 'it is a given-up fact that the plaintiff has the judge;' that it is patent to everybody that the judge is in favor of Newt., [meaning plaintiff,] and that his attorneys say he has an equal show with the jury; that a great deal more was said than appears in quotation marks, and the case discussed from the beginning, and this juror made remarks concerning the case, saying that 'Morsman,' one of the attorneys in the case, 'was the best speaker and had the best voice;' and that the person to whom I was speaking replied that it was admitted that the plaintiff had the judge; that I did not know at the time I was talking that Horace Pratt was a member of the jury, and that he never made it known to any one that he was a juror, and never asked any one to desist, but waited and listened to the discussion for at least fifteen minutes that he staid for awhile after it was suggested by some one that he [Pratt] was a juror; that I never would have discussed the case had I known he was a juror, and ceased as soon as I discovered it. All the above facts and statements are true, as I verily believe, so help me God." The other two affidavits corroborate that of Stillians in part, and in one of them it is stated that, when some one suggested that Pratt was a juror, he (Pratt) said: "Go ahead, boys; I will soon have the case decided;" and then retired.

The plaintiff, in resistance to the motion, filed the affidavit of the juror Pratt, in which he admitted that he was in the drug-store a few minutes, but that he heard no discussion in regard to the case; that when he went into the drug-store he heard Stillians say to some person there present that "Morsman has the judge," or "generally has the judge," and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT