Vance v. Haslett

• Decision Date: 09 October 1815
• Citation: 7 Ky. 191
• Parties: Vance v. Haslett.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

7 Ky. 191

Vance v. Haslett.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 9, 1815

A cause of challenge to a juror not discovered until after verdict, is a good cause for a new trial.

A juror objected to for partiality is an improper witness on the motion for a new trial to prove his impartiality.

A juror declaring previously that if he was of the jury he would give 1000 dollars damages, was not an impartial juror: and such cause of objection discovered after verdict, is sufficient cause to set aside the verdict.

OPINION

BOYLE Chief Justice.

THIS was an action of assault and battery. The cause was tried on the general issue and a verdict being found for the plaintiff for $372 75, the defendant moved the Court for a new trial on the ground that after the verdict was rendered he had discovered that one of the jurors who tried the cause had declared before the trial that if he was on the jury he would give $1000 damages against the defendant; but the Court overruled the motion and gave judgment for the plaintiff from which the defendant has prosecuted this appeal.

We can have no doubt that in point of fact the ground upon which the motion for a new trial was made, was sufficiently established. One witness who was introduced in support of the motion, deposed that shortly after the affray which was the subject of the action, he heard the juror declare that if he should be on the jury he would give $1000 against the defendant, and that at different times afterward he had heard him use similar expressions. Other witnesses, though apparently introduced for the purpose of discrediting his testimony, rather corroborate it; for although they say they do not recollect the expression deposed to by the first witness, they declare that they had heard the juror speak hardly of the defendant in relation to the transaction in question. And even the juror himself, though very improperly introduced to prove his own impartiality does not acquit himself of having prejudged the cause against the defendant; for at the same time that he declares he had no quarrel with, or ill will toward the the defendant, and does not recollect to have used the expressions imputed to him by the first witness, he acknowledges that he had said that he would not be in the shoes of the defendant for $1000.

The whole testimony, therefore concurs in making an impression upon the mind, that the juror was prejudiced (if not against the...