Legal Opinion

Smith v. Thompson

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 1823PublishedCited by 23 opinions

Motion to set aside the verdict, for irregularity in the -conduct of the jury. After they bad retired, and remained from 6 P. M. to 3 A. M. without being able to agree on their verdict, two of the jurors eluded the care of the constable, left the jury room, and one of them remained at a neighboring tavern during the night: the other went to his own house, which was near by, ate his supper there, and staid all night.

Read the full summary

Motion to set aside the verdict, for irregularity in the -conduct of the jury. After they bad retired, and remained from 6 P. M. to 3 A. M. without being able to agree on their verdict, two of the jurors eluded the care of the constable, left the jury room, and one of them remained at a neighboring tavern during the night: the other went to his own house, which was near by, ate his supper there, and staid all night. Both jurors returned. however, and the whole were together, and went into ■Court the next morning. They informed the Court that they had not agreed, stated the point to the Court…

1Opinion of the Court

Curia.

It was clearly irregular in the two jurors to separate from their fellows. But this does not affect the merits of the case, as between the parties. The ancient strictness, in relation to the conduct of jurors, is somewhat relaxed, as may be seen in Hackley v. Hastie & Patrick, de cided by this Court (3 John. Rep. 252.) Whether the verdict is to be set aside, must depend upon circumstances and the real justice of the case. If there is a probability of abuse, we then notice it; but here is none.

Motion denied.(a)

As remarked by the Court, different degrees of strictness, in relation to the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Burrill v. PhillipsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1812
  2. Hackley v. HastieNew York Supreme Court · 1808

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Creek v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
  2. Haight v. City of ElmiraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
  3. Yale v. Gwinits & CaslerNew York Supreme Court · 1849
  4. Parsons v. HuffSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1854
  5. Perkins v. ErmelSupreme Court of Kansas · 1864

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API