'(Oircuit Court, S. D. New York. February 1,1882.\
PBACTICE-Sl'AY OF PnOCEEDUlGB-SECURITY FOR JUDGMENT.
Where defendants, solvent but engaged in active business, moved, after verdiet, for a stay of proceedings during the time allowed for making a case, security required under the circumstalH.:cs as a condition for the granting of such stay.
Motion for Stay of Proceedings. SHIPMAN, D. J. The motion is not opposed by the plaintiff, but he that it should be granted upon terms; i. e., inasmuch as the plaintiff has. now no security, that security should be given for the payment of the judgment, if one is rendered. The verdict amounts to a very large sum, viz., about $181,000. The defendants are probably now of ample means to pay all their liabilities, but they are in active business, and whether they will be able to pay their debts at the expiration of some months, in case judgment is entered against them, depends upon contingencies which cannot now be ascertained and made certain. They are now able to give security, and no serious hardships will be imposed thereby. If no security is given, a large elaim is placed at some hazard. In the case of so large a verdict against parties who are subject to the vicissitudes of business, I think that the plaintiff is entitled to security. The motion of the defendants for a stay is granted, provided they shall give bond, with two sureties, to the satisfaction of the court, in the sum of $200,000, conditioned for the payment to the plaintiff of any judgment which may be rendered against them in this suit, or for the satisfaction of said judgment. In case a writ of error shall be taken to the supreme court, this bond can be vacated, and the bond required by section 1000 upon writs of error will be given.
"Reported by S. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.
DOYLE t1. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Oourt, N. D. Illinois. December 5. 1881.)
CR1MINAL FROM THE JUDGE TO THE· URY.
Though it is an irregularity in. a judge to communicate privately with one 01 the jurors while they are deliberating upon their verdict, yet such irregularity furnishes no sufficient ground for reversal, where it is not clear that it worked, of necessity, a prejudice to the plaintiff in error. 2.
Under the practice of this district, where it is agreed, in a criminal case, that a verdict may be signed and sealed by the jurors and delivered in court, and they are required to meet the court when it again it is the right of the defendant to have the jury present in court when the verdict is opened.
On Error to the District Court. BangstX Kirkland, for plantiff in error.
I. The court erred in privately communicating with one of the jurors while they were deliberating upon their verdict. Whart. Cr. Pl'. (8th Ed.) §§ 714, 830; 2 Grah. & Wat., New Trials, 360; State v. Alexander, 66 Mo. 148; Sar. gent v. Roberts, 1 Pick. 341; state v. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308; Taylor v. state, 42 Texas, 504.
Authorities to the next point also cited.
II. The court erred in denying the defendant's motion to have the jury polled. 3 Bl. Com. 377; 10 Bac. Abr. tit. "Verdict, B;" 1 Bish. Crim. Proc. § 1002; Lawrence v. Stearns, 11 Pick. 501; U. S. v. Potter. 6 McLean, 188, 189; Nomaque v. People, Breese, 145; Root v.Sherwood, 6 Johns. 68; Riggs v. Cook,4 Gilm. 352; Sargent v. State,l1 Ohio, 473; Sutliff v. (}ilbert,8 Ohio, 408; State v. Engles, 13 Ohio, 490; U. S. v. Bennett, 16 Blatchf. 374; Martin v. Morelock, 32 Ill. 485; Reem v. People, 30 Ill. 256; Crotty v. Wyatt, 3 Bradw. 388; Price v. State, 38 Miss. 531; Woner v. N. Y. C. R. Co. 52 N. Y. 437; Goodwin v. Appleton,22 Me. 456. Joseph B. Leake, U. S. Atty;, for defendant
I. Tbe defendant bad no common-law right to poll the jury. Com. v. Roby, 12 Pick. 496, 511; Martin v. Maverick, 1 McCord, 24; State v. Allen, ld. 525. In civil cases. Beal v. Hall, 22 Ga. 431. II. It has never been the practice in the federal courts. Dunlap v. Mon1'oe, 1 Cranch, 536; U. S. v. Anthony, 11 Blatchf. 209; U. S. v. Bridges, 10 Cent. Law J. 7. .
DRUMMOND, C. J., (orally.) At the last May term of the district court the plaintiff in error was tried on an indictment for passing false and forged bonds of the United States, knowing them to be forged. He was found guilty by the jury, and a motion for a new was made and overruled, and sentence of imprisonment passed