Harrington v. Manchester & Lawrence Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for personal injuries. After the trial, and a verdict for the defendants, the plaintiff moved to set the verdict aside because the foreman of the jury was an uncle of the defendants’ treasurer, a stockholder in the corporation, and a witness on the trial. The juror was regularly drawn from a town in the county, and had been in attendance as a juror eight days before the trial. The juror understood that the defendants’ treasurer was a stockholder. Motion denied.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
It is repugnant to the natural sense of justice that one pecuniarily interested in the event of a trial, or related to either party to the cause, should decide, or take part in deciding, its merits. The preservation of confidence in jury trials, and of purity in the administration of justice, requires that jurors should be free from objections which are everywhere recognized as disqualifying, and that they should be “ as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit.” Bill of Rights, Art. 35. The smallest pecuniary interest in the result of a cause disqualifies a juror from sitting, and is a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wassum v. FeeneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Woodward v. DeanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Quinebaug Bank v. LeavensSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1849
- Place v. Butternuts Woolen & Cotton Manufacturing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1857
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bickford v. FranconiaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- Morley v. Cranmore Skimobiles, Inc.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1946
- Hazen v. P. H. Rice Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1938
- Barry v. LittleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
- Roberts v. Public Service Co.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1936