Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/856

 844 PBDKBAI* BEPOBTBB. �fooL, Administratrix, v. The C, B. & Q. E. Co. (Circuit Court, B. I<ma. May 11, 1881.) �1. JUKOE— MiSCONDirCT— PnEJUDICB. �Where the natural tendency of what a juror does or says or will- ingly listens to from others is to bias hia mind, or where his miscon- duct evinces a prejudgment of the case, or ill-will, or passion against the losing party, the inference of prejudice in the true sense inevi- tably follows, because the verdict cannot be said to be the resuit of a f air trial. �2. Samb— Samb—Bamb. �iUnder such circumstances the mere facts that the successful party was not in fault, and that the verdict -«vas approved by the court, does hot relieve the case from the mierence of prejudice. �3. 8ame — Same— SAiffi. �■ . Where a juror talks eutside the jury room about' a case pending ftnd
 * ; ai:|qteaide(^ bef6rp him, te giyes the blearest evidence that he is not

�an iiBpartia} and unbiased juror. , �4. Samb— Same— Same.. . . ^ ' ,:\ ■■■ ,. . �Tiie statement of a juror tjiat w^iai he has thus said or heard has •f aot afiected' or influeaced'Ma'jUdeiiient, isnot, uiider stohicirciiiii- vriiStaiiieeSj.entitled to aiiy weight..:.' ■ '•'■'■'• ■'-■<>■':■ ;• ■/ �fi,;i|Si|:iwrf)T}iiAi.— jyiiscQiDjjcT, OF JtrBaisfrt-PuEJuiJidE., *. i! ■: �; Partpf ,tbe jprors engaged ii» the: trial of a «^ause pagsed several �consecutive evenings at cards in the room of one of the defendant's �counsel, at the hotei -where some.'brft' not all.'of satd jtirors Were �iii istQpping.! :'lt.appfeared'lthat itaeicbunsel did uot kno-wthat these �.,_j\\Tqx^iY^v&(?^ the party vhen he^ionsented that.hi^ ropm^^iould be �thus Vccupied, and that ■wheh he discovered that ^ajct he studiously �' ■ ke^i^lOof f-rotn the 'room every evening until afterthe card party had �' ^dispersed. It further appeared that while the eaaewae'yet before �, . ; the Jaiy and lindec jded, one of the jurors had tallied freely and f ully �,"with a thjrd party about the ease, and had in such conversation �■ «xpressed himsejf to the prejudice of the plaintifE and the.plaintitf's • <3otiu»el/ It aJso appeared that after the jury had retired for consul- tation that this same juror moyed that one of their party act as fore- maiL ^and that then, upon motion, said juror was apppinted gecretary. Seld,, in view of these circumstances, that the verdict should be set aside and a new trial granted. — [Ed �Motion for a New Trial. �Hagerman, McCrary e Hagerman, for plaintiff. H. H. Trimhle and J. W. Blythe, for defendant. Love, D. J. This case was tried by jury at the last January term, in Keokuk. The jury gave a verdict for the defendant. ��� �