Legal Opinion
Holt v. Brodie
Hawaii Supreme Court
Decided October 25, 1886PublishedCited by 1 opinion
Exceptions to Refusal of the Chief Justice to Grant a New Tjbial. After a verdict for plaintiff, a servant of plaintiff provided a lunch for some of the jurors who rendered the verdict, but plaintiff was not a party to it: held, no reason for granting a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court, by
Preston, J.
This is an action of replevin, and was tried at the last July Term before the Chief Justice and a mixed jury when a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
The defendant at the same time moved for a new trial on the ground:
“That plaintiff attempted to exercise and did exercise an improper influence over the jury in the said trial, as was shown by his brother, William Holt, (who was also a witness on said trial) .treating them to a dinner at the close of sáid trial.”
Supposing the facts alleged in the motion were true, they do ;not, in our opinion, disclose any…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harrison v. RowanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1820
3Cited by1 opinion
- Territory ex rel. Bailey v. GayHawaii Supreme Court · 1922