Practice — New trial — Confusion of juror — Verdicts in trespass cases — Humiliating dissenting juror in court room.
In trespass cases, in which it appeared that, after the case was submitted to the jury, the trial judge was notified at a late hour that the jury wanted additional instructions; that when the jury was convened in the court room it developed that the jury did not require additional instructions but that there was a disagreement, with one juror refusing to join the majority of eleven; that in open court the foreman stated that the majority found the reasons of the dissenting juror ridiculous; that the dissenting juror appeared confused as to the verdict announced in court; that further confusion of the jury was indicated by the rendition of a verdict in the one case and a disagreement of the jury in the other; and that the court below held that there had existed a degree of uncertainty and confusion in the jury which required the granting of a new trial in the interests of justice; it was Held that the order of the court below granting plaintiffs a new trial should be affirmed.
Argued March 22, 1962.
OPINION PER CURIAM, April 12, 1962:
The order of the court below granting plaintiff's motion for new trial as to Percy Rickman, defendant, is affirmed on the opinion of Judge BURCH of the County Court of Philadelphia, as reported in 26 Pa. D. C. 2d 514.