| U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Virginia | Apr 17, 1897
F. M. Threadgill obtained a verdict against Thomas C. Platt, representing the United States Express Company, on the law side of this court, at Lynchburg, 27th April, 1895, in the sum of $51,371. Judgment was entered and exceptions were taken, but the appeal was not perfected in time for the circuit court of appeals. A levy having been made under execution on this judgment, it was stayed; the defendant entering into bond, with sureties, conditioned in the alternative, for the payment of the said judgment on or before the 15th April, 1896, or the obtaining of a writ of error or supersedeas thereon on or before that date. This bill is now filed to enjoin said judgment, and to enjoin proceedings upon the said bond. After-wards, and by leave, an amended bill was filed, setting up yet other grounds for enjoining the judgment. The facts which are recognized and admitted on both sides are that pending the trial of the action at law, during the afternoon of the day preceding the day on which the case was submitted to the jury, some of the jurymen were present at and heard a conversation between one Bowden, the agent of the plaintiff, and a deputy marshal, in which the latter suggested that the former should treat to cigars. They heard his response that he was perfectly willing to do so, if a visit was paid to his place of business, and they thought that they were included in the invitation. After the court had adjourned for the day, three of the jury started to seek the place of business of Bowden, accompanied by a fourth juror, who was
The trial by jury was instituted to secure an impartial tribunal of the issues of fact in a case. The jurors are kept as far as possible from all extraneous influences. And although the rigidity of the common-law practice has been relaxed, and now jurors are not kept secluded from possibility of such influences, still every precaution is taken to prevent them from reaching the jury. And, in so far as the absolute seclusion of the jury under the common law has been relaxed^ just so far should the moral restriction substituted in its stead be enlarged and enforced. The jury are instructed to try every case according to the evidence. They are sworn to do so. The evidence before them is always delivered under oath or affirmation. Every fact submitted to them is brought out by examination and cross-examination. Every question by which such fact is élicited must be put in the presence of counsel, is subjected to the scrutiny of counsel and to discussion by them of its competency or relevancy, and, if any dispute arises, it is decided by the court. This examination is controlled by rules of evidence, a violation of which, even with the sanction of the court, will be ground for a new trial. Testimony is taken only before a full jury, and the rule is inflexible that nothing goes to them except in the presence of all. Private communications, possibly prejudicial, between jurors and third persons or witnesses or the officer in charge, are absolutely forbidden, and invalidate the verdict, at least until their harmlessness is made to appear. Mattox v. U. S., 146 U. S. 150, 13 Sup. Ct. 50. “The rule is that the slightest tampering with the jury during the trial or prior to it, by a party, or the agent or attorney of a party, in whose favor the verdict has been rendered, is, on ground of public policy, good cause for setting aside the verdict, without reference to the merits of the case, and without considering whether the attempt to poison the sources of justice was or was not successful. On this point Hawkins says: ‘The law so abhors all corruption of this
In the case at bar the jury was engaged—had been engaged for days—in trying a question between the complainant, defendant in the law court, and the present defendant, plaintiff in that court. The-main question in the case was as to the amount of damages to be allowed, and this amount of damages depended very much upon the quality, character, and value of the cigars intrusted by Threadgill to the express company, and by the latter lost to the former. The testimony was nearly all in. An effort had been made to produce the cigars before the jury, which had failed. Slurs upon the quality and value of the cigars had been uttered in the presence of the jury. Just at this critical period the plaintiff, Threadgill, casually met with-four of. the jury. He entered into company and conversation with them, walked with them towards his own store, and prolonged his companionship with them by visiting a church edifice on the road. He took three of them to his store. One of the jurymen, recognizing the manifest impropriety of the act, refused to accompany the others. 'With these others, Threadgill entered his store, called for a box of cigars, and distributed the whole box between the three. He, a dealer in cigars, suing for the value of cigars, put into the hands of one-fourth of the jury the best evidence of the value of his cigars, and gave them the means and opportunity of furnishing the same evidence to the rest of the jury. It does not fully appear what took place during the walk with Threadgill and the interview in his store. But the next day the jury brought in a full verdict for the plaintiff,—nearly all that plaintiff claimed,—the cigars getting their full value. The-least that can be said is that Mr. Threadgill embraced the accidental opportunity to ingratiate himself with this large contingent of the jury, and that he, unintentionally, it may be, placed in their hands a most valuable piece of testimony, which the other side had no means
The bill sets up another reason for reopening this verdict; that is, the charges of misconduct against the juror Wright. These charges have not been sustained.
At the healing the question of jurisdiction was not raised, nor is it raised in the pleadings. It has, however, been considered by the court. The first duty of a federal court is to inquire if a cause is within its jurisdiction. The complainant had lost all ground of relief at law when discovery was made of the-facts stated in the bill as ground for setting aside the verdict. This gives jurisdiction to this court sitting in equity. Knifong v. Hendricks, 3 Grat. 212; Lawless v. Reese, 3 Bibb, 486" court="Ky. Ct. App." date_filed="1814-10-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/lawless-v-reese-8685002?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8685002">3 Bibb, 486; Pelzer Manuf’g Co. v. Hamburg-Bremen Fire Ins. Co., 62 F. 1" court="None" date_filed="1894-06-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/pelzer-manufg-co-v-hamburg-bremen-fire-ins-co-8850059?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8850059">62 Fed. 1, 71 F. 826" court="None" date_filed="1896-01-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/pelzer-manufg-co-v-hamburg-bremen-fire-ins-8854437?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8854437">71 Fed. 826; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 84; Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U. S. 598, 12 Sup. Ct. 62.
Another question was raised by the court at the hearing, not by any of the counsel. It was developed in the progress of the cause that the judgment at law had been carried to the supreme court of the United States on writ of error, and was there pending under a supersedeas. This question has been set at rest by Johnson v. Railway Co., 141 U. S. 610, 12 Sup. Ct. 124, following Parker v. Judges, 12 Wheat. 561" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1827-02-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/parker-v-judges-of-the-circuit-court-of-maryland-85546?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="85546">12 Wheat. 561. The circuit court sitting in equity can entertain a bill of this kind notwithstanding the writ of error. Let the injunction issue as prayed for in the bill. But, as it does not conclusively appear that the error committed by the defendant was with the design to corrupt the jury, the costs of the case will be paid by the complainant.