Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 N.H. 116

Tyler v. Stevens

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Decided May 15, 1827

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1827-05-15

This was a writ of entry brought to recover a tract of land in Claremont, and was tried here at October term, 1326, upon the general issue and a verdict returned for the tenants. In the course of the term the demandants moved the court to grant a new trial on the ground that some of the jurors who tried the cause had misunderstood the directions given to the jury by the= court, and they offered the affidavits of five jurors to prove the fact,

Relies on Dana v. Tucker · Jackson ex dem. Noah v. Dickenson & Thompson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1827-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017

15 state decisions

3018271830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Richardson, C. J.

¶1We have attentively considered the motion which has been made in this case, and are clearly of opinion that the affidavits of the jurors cannot be received, and that the motion must be overruled.

¶2The better opinion is, that when the jury is guilty of misconduct in finding their verdict, as when they agree to determine it by lot, the fact cannot be proved by the testimony of the jurors. 4 Binney, 150, Cluggage v. Swan; 4 B. & P. 326, Owen v. Warburton; 4 Johns. 487, Dana v. Tucker; 3 Cowen’s Rep. 56, Smith v. Cheetham; 1 Mass. Rep. 530, Grinnel v. Phillips; 1 D. & E. 11, Vasie v. Delaval. It has been thought to be singular indeed that almost the only evidence of which the case admits should be shut out, but considering the arts which might be used if a contrary rule were to prevail, it has been thought necessary to exclude such evidence.

¶3And it is well settled that jurors are not to be received to testify to the motives and inducements on which they may have joined in a verdict. 14 Mass. Rep. 245, Bridge v. Eggleston; 15 Johns. 317.

¶4Nor can the affidavits of all the jurors be received to correct a mistake in the verdict. It is said to be better that an individual should suffer, than that such a rule, which must be productive of infinite mischief, should be introduced. 2 D. & E. 281, Jackson v. Williamson.

¶5In Coster v. Merest, 3 Brod. & Bing. 272, where it was shown that hand bills reflecting on the plaintiff’s character had been distributed in court and shewn to the jury on the day of trial, the court would not receive from the jurors affidavits in contradiction and granted anew trial, thinking it might be of pernicious consequence to receive such affidavits in any case.

¶6*118If it were once settled that the affidavits of jurors could be received to prove that they had misunderstood - the instruction given them bv the court, and that such misunderstanding was a legal ground for granting a new trial, the consequences would be most misehievious. For a very little tampering with individual jurors after the trial would enable any party to procure such affidavits and no verdict could be permitted to stand.

¶7Judgment on the verdict.

/4/nh/116 · .json · Public domain