United States v. 120,000 Acres of Land

• Decision Date: 20 October 1943
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 51.
• Citation: 52 F. Supp. 212
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. 120,000 ACRES OF LAND.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

52 F. Supp. 212

UNITED STATES v. 120,000 ACRES OF LAND.

Civil Action No. 51.

District Court, N. D. Texas, San Angelo Division.

October 20, 1943.

Upton & Upton, of San Angelo, Tex., for the motion.

J. Edward Johnson, Sp. U. S. Atty., of Brownwood, Tex., opposed.

ATWELL, District Judge.

Among the many controversies growing out of this interesting condemnation cause, is one by H. Ford Glass, from whom was taken 408 acres, and one by Modie M. Glass from whom 357 acres were taken. These two cases were tried together because the lands joined, and it seemed a practicable joinder.

The testimony seemed to indicate that Modie Glass's land was the better, it being what was called "valley" land. Upon it there were no improvements save fences, water, etc. The Ford Glass lands were more uplands and of lesser value but had other improvements besides the fences.

Under appropriate instructions the jury fixed the value of each tract at $40 per acre. The attorney for Ford Glass contends that the jury did not give Ford Glass the benefit of his improvements in the lump sum finding of each. In his attempt to secure, as he terms it, a "correction of the judgment," he caused to be subpoenaed eleven of the jurors who, at a hearing of the motion, and in the absence of each other, testified that the difference in the value of the land was considered by them and that the lump average per acre fixed for each of the claimants included such improvements as Ford Glass had.

One of the jurors was not clear in memory and thought that the amount did not include improvements. The case was tried at the beginning of this term and some two weeks have elapsed since its trial.

While the testimony of the jurors clearly disproves the grounds of the motion and makes it imperative that it be overruled, it is not amiss to call attention to the rule in the United States court with reference to a matter of this sort.

Because of public policy, a juror is not permitted to impeach his own verdict, nor to testify to his own misconduct. If such were not the case, the court would be in the attitude of holding an inquisition after jury trials in which the subjects of inquiry would be the jurors themselves. Jurors are free from any such espionage, attack, inconvenience, or inquiry. When a verdict is returned, they are polled and they are then asked, "So say you all?"

This question is not an open one. Such cases as Davis v. United States, 5 Cir., 47 F.2d 1071; McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 35 S.Ct. 783, 59 L.Ed. 1300; Lancaster v. United States, 5 Cir., 39 F.2d 30; Williams v. United States, 6 Cir., 3 F.2d 933; Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 384, 32 S.Ct. 793, 56 L.Ed. 1114, Ann.Cas.1914A, 614, hold that the testimony of jurors should not be received to show matters which essentially inhere...