Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/369

 Knauf & Knauf, for respondent.

“One of the causes assigned by statute for a new trial is, § 2, “Misconduct of the jury.” But the affidavits of the jurors can only be used to show such misconduct in cases where the verdict is arrived at by chance.” § 7660, Comp. Laws, 1913.

“Where the juror’s conduct was known at the time of the trial a motion for a new trial on that ground will not be granted, as it was his duty to call attention of the court to it during the trial.” Ewing v. Lunn, 115 N. W. 527.

“Where motion for a new trial is made upon the grounds of misconduct of jurors, such misconduct cannot be shown by affidavit of a juror—such statements are inadmissible to show misconduct or to impeach a verdict.”

If it appear that the alleged misconduct of a juror was not caused by the prevailing party then a new trial should not be granted. State v. Robidou, 128 N. W. 1124; Ewing v. Murphy, 1 L. R. A. 820; Phillips v. R. I. Co. 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 930 and cases cited; Peoples v. Ritchie, 42 Pac. 209, Utah.

“New York affirms the principle that jurors cannot be heard by affidavit or otherwise to impeach their verdict.” Williams v. Montgomery, 60 N. Y. 648 and cases cited.

“Affidavits of jurors cannot be used to show how jurors arrived at their verdict.” State v. Forester, 103 N. W. 625; 14 N. D. 335; Glaspell v. N. P. R. R. Co. 43 Fed. 900; Johnson v. Seel, 144 N. W. 237; 26 N. D. 299.

“The affidavit of attorney as to statements and of admissions uf jurors to such attorney are inadmissible.” Johnson v. Seel supra 238; Siemsen v. Oaklan, 66 Pac. 673 (Cal.) ; People v. Ritchie, 42 Pac. 209, (Utah).

“A party to an action will not be heard to complain of errors which he himself has induced the trial court to commit.” 3 Cent. Dig. Col. 1312 § 3591; Walton v. C. St. P. M. & O. Ry., 6 C. C. A. 223; 2 Dec. Dig. § 882; May v. Cummings, 130 N. W. 828; 21 N. D. 287; Knox v. Ry. Co. 203 S. W. 229, 1 (N. D.) ; Pyke v. Jamestown, 15 N. D. 161.

“Particular errors complained of should be specified.” § 7663 Code 1913; Henry v. Maher, 6 N. D. 414; Baumer v. Freach, 8 N. D. 319; State v. School Dist. 18 N. D. 616; Chaffee v. Edinger, 29 N. D. 537; Frost v. Hallinger, 21 N. D. 560.

Now, it is well settled, that unless the complaining party had been