O'Brien v. Merchants' Insurance
The Superior Court of New York City
In this case, two account books, which had been put in evidence, were submitted to the jury, by consent of counsel, and taken by it into the jury room.
Read the full summary
In this case, two account books, which had been put in evidence, were submitted to the jury, by consent of counsel, and taken by it into the jury room. When the jury returned into court, it was discovered by plaintiff’s counsel that a written paper, not in evidence, had been pinned to a leaf inside one of the books, which paper contained a criticism of the accounts, and suggested various defects and discrepancies in them, and reflected upon Mr. Candler, a witness for the plaintiff, who had kept the accounts. Mr. John L. Douglass, the secretary of defendant, having the custody of the books,…
1Opinion of the Court
The following is part of the long opinion by
Curtis, J.
— It is apparent that if this paper was thus placed before the jury, simply by the oversight of the defendant’s secretary, as claimed, it was still an improper communication to the jury, and one for which the verdict should be set aside, unless it is shown that none of the jury read the paper, and that they were not influenced by it.
The history of the law discloses a struggle for centuries, to prevent juries from being approached by improper communications and influences.
Every expedient of human ingenuity has been thus resorted to in order…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Watertown Bank and Loan Co. v. . MixNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Nesmith v. Clinton Fire InsuranceThe Superior Court of New York City · 1858