Winslow v. Morrill
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ON motion, from the superior court, by the defendant for a new trial because, among other grounds, of the misconduct of Edward S. Hacker, one of the jurors who tried the cause.
Read the full summary
ON motion, from the superior court, by the defendant for a new trial because, among other grounds, of the misconduct of Edward S. Hacker, one of the jurors who tried the cause. The plaintiff’s declaration avers that he was the owner and occupier of a milk farm in Deering, through which ran Fall brook, a stream from which his cows were accustomed to drink; and that the defendant erected on the stream near its source and above the plaintiff’s premises, a currier and wool pulling shop, in which he used noxious and poisonous mixtures, compounds and substances, and permitted the same, and all the…
1Opinion of the CourtWaltoN, J.
It is now well settled that jurors must decide eases upon such evidence as is produced before them by the parties to the litigation, and that they cannot go in search of evidence privately, or act upon evidence thus obtained. Heffron v. Gallupe, 55 Maine, 563. Bowler v. Washington, 62 Maine, 302.
The court is of opinion that the conduct of Mr. Hacker, one of the jurors who tried this cause, was such, in this particular, as entitles the defendant to a new trial.
Motion sustained. JVew trial granted.
Appleton, C. J., Barrows, Virgin and Peters, JJ., concurred.
2Cited by10 opinions
- Aldrich v. WetmoreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Patterson v. RossignolSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1968
- Schneider v. MoeOregon Supreme Court · 1935
- Marr v. ShoresSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1985
- Eckel v. BreezeOregon Supreme Court · 1960
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.