¶1This was a direct violation of the oath of the juryman, which is the principal guard placed upon jurors in this state, although the law requires that they should be kept confined by an officer until they are agreed in a verdict; yet it has ever been practiced for the jury to adjourn and disperse to their quarters, and if they are suffered to enter hato conversation respecting causes they have under consideration, with persons not of the jury, the purity of trials by jury would be perverted and corrupted, therefore the most vigilant attention is required. See Dana v. Roberts, Hartford September A. D. 1789.
1 Root 429
Bow v. Parsons
Decided July 15, 1792
Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1792-07-15
AotioN for the escape of Gordon Whitmore from gaol, who was in prison upon an execution for £57 14s. 4d. debt and £24 4s. cost. The defendant plead that he had made full payment of tbe execution before the date and impetration of the plaintiff’s writ. Issue to'the jury. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff and £79 16s. 5d. damages.
Decided 1792-07-15