Cherry v. Sweeny
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Motion by defendant for a new trial, because one of the jurors gave information of his own knowledge, after they retired, viz.: that he had heard both from the defendant and plaintiff, that the defendant was not to be allowed anything for the services of her son; which was a claim in set-off which she had attempted to prove on the trial. 1. It is a good ground for a new trial. 1 Bl. Comm. 374, 375; 3 Bl.
Read the full summary
Motion by defendant for a new trial, because one of the jurors gave information of his own knowledge, after they retired, viz.: that he had heard both from the defendant and plaintiff, that the defendant was not to be allowed anything for the services of her son; which was a claim in set-off which she had attempted to prove on the trial. 1. It is a good ground for a new trial. 1 Bl. Comm. 374, 375; 3 Bl. Comm. 373. 2. The fact may be proved by the affidavits of the jurymen. 1 Sel. Pr. 508; Cogan v. Ebden, 1 Burrows, 383; Rex v. Simmons, 1 Wils. 320; Hale v. Cove, 1 Strange, 642; Yasie v.…
1Opinion of the Court
New trial refused (PITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, absent), THE COURT being of opinion, that substantial justice had been done, and doubting the policy of giving an easy ear to affidavits of this kind.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ruckle v. American Car & Foundry Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Pennsylvania · 1912