Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/93

 82 

MOTION was made, the 10th of November, on the part of the defendant, to et aide the return of the jury of inquiry, on affidavit of irregular proceedings; and the Court granted a rule to hew caue &c.

And now two of the jurors attended and depoed, that Leib’s book, upported by his own oath, had been admitted as evidence of the delivery of a quantity of leather by Leib, to the order of Bolton, in part dicharge of an agreement between them. But being aked, whether they founded their inquet in any degree upon that evidence, they aid it was founded upon that, and concurrent tetimony.

In upport of the motion it was contended, that, though the admiion of books in the manner above tated, had been cutomary; yet that the cutom ought not to be carried farther than to prove work done, or wares delivered; that the purpoe for which they had been introduced, on the preent occaion, aroe upon a collateral point, to etablih a ett off in diminution of the damages, and that it was, therefore, irregular to admit them. With repect to the concurrent tetimony mentioned by the jurors, it was aid, that as neither the nature, or effect of it, appeared to the Court, it might have been even more improper than the allowance of the books as evidence; but that, in all events, the inquet ought to be et aide, as what did appear, hews it to have been raied o far upon an erroneous foundation.

But, : We will not et aide the verdicts of juries of inquiry; nor the reports of referrees, upon frivolous grounds. Nor will we examine into the effect of any particular piece of evidence upon the minds of the jury; for, unles, it appears, that there was no proper evidence before them, we mut preume that they had ufficient grounds for their inquet.

The Rule dicharged.

Sergeant for the plaintiff—Lewis and Levy for the defendant. See Caes Temp. Hard. 381.