Shepherd v. Inhabitants of Camden
| Decision Date | 27 May 1890 |
| Citation | 82 Me. 535,20 A. 91 |
| Parties | SHEPHERD v. INHABITANTS OF CAMDEN. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Motion for new trial from supreme judicial court, Knox county.
This was a complaint by a land-owner to the court for Knox county, under Rev. St. c. 18, § 68, chapter 97, Pub. Laws 1887, for a view and assessment of damages caused by raising the street in front of the plaintiff's premises in the village of Rockport, town of Camden. The defendants contended that the benefits were equal to the damages. There was a view by the jury, who returned a verdict for the defendants.
Besides the general motion to set aside the verdict as against law and evidence, the plaintiff filed a special motion for a new trial on the ground of alleged misconduct of jurymen during the view, and after they had retired to deliberate upon their verdict. In this motion the plaintiff alleged that one of the jurymen, whose knowledge of the premises had been acquired more than 15 years before the trial, and before they had been used for the purposes which gave them their value, had declared in the jury-room that he had worked teaming there, and that in his opinion the way out from the wharf was no worse than when he teamed there: that said statement influenced the mind of one other juryman in finding a verdict for the plaintiff. The motion also alleged similar declarations made during the view, with like effect upon the minds of jurors. Affidavits of the jury and others, with depositions taken by a commissioner appointed by the court, were filed with a report of the evidence at the trial.
D. N. Mortland, for plaintiff. C. E. Littlefield, for defendants.
This case was tried at nisi prius, on the petition of the plaintiff for damage to his lands by reason of a change of grade in the street passing by them. The verdict was for the defendant. The case comes before this court on two motions: First, to set aside the verdict as against evidence; second, for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.
As to the first motion, we think the evidence reported preponderates in favor of the plaintiff for some damages. But there was evidence on both sides submitted to the jury, and the preponderance is not so great as to satisfy us that the verdict was the result of bias or prejudice of the jury, or of any mistake made by them. Furthermore we have not before us all the evidence which the jury had to act upon. They properly viewed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Slorah
...held that upon a view under the statute the jury had the right to take into consideration what they saw of the situation. Shepherd v. Camden, 82 Me. 535, 20 Atl. 91. And in Wakefield v. Boston & Maine R. R., 63 Me. 385, also a land damage "In contemplation of the statute the 'view' is a por......
-
Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Smith
...289, 295, 4 N.E. 870; Louisville N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Wood, 113 Ind. 544, 550, 14 N.E. 5572; Davis v. Jenny, 1 Metcalfe 222; Shepherd v. Camden, 82 Me. 535, 20 A. 91; Omaha & R. Co. v. Walker, 17 Neb. 432, 23 N.W. 348. There is no sense in the conclusion that the knowledge which the jurors ......
-
Patterson v. Rossignol
...fellows of facts known by them which influenced their action, are competent evidence to prove such irregularity. Shepherd v. Inhabitants of Camden, 1890, 82 Me. 535, 20 A. 91. But a juryman may testify to any facts bearing upon the question of the existence of an outside influence upon the ......
-
Mary Mcandrews v. Roy H. Leonard
...111 Ill. 651; Maywood Co. v. Maywood, 140 Ill. 216, 29 N.E. 704; Seaverns v. Lischinski, 181 Ill. 358, 54 N.E. 1043; Shepherd v. Camden, 82 Me. 535, 20 A. 91; Blincoe v. Choctaw O. & W. R. R. Co., 16 Okla. 83 P. 903, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 890, 8 Ann. Cas. 689. The exception is without force. At t......