Practice — Verdict — Coercion of jury — Tipstaff — Evidence — Testimony of jurors — New trial.
1. A new trial was granted where the minority of the jury were coerced into agreeing with the majority by the misconduct of the court officer who was in charge of them. [393-400]
2. The authority of a court to use reasonable methods to bring about a verdict founded upon conscientious conviction, and in a proper manner to press upon the jury their duty to render such verdict, does not permit the use of methods which take the character of a mandate, with penalties of both moral and physical suffering for disobedience. [400]
3. A juror may testify as to his own actions outside of the jury room, or as to the misconduct of one of the parties to the suit, or of a third party, particularly if such misconduct amounted to a fraud upon the court or the parties, or might tend to influence the verdict. [395]
4. Such testimony is not admissible to show what effect, if any, such misconduct had upon the jury's verdict. [395]
Argued May 26, 1938.
PER CURIAM, June 17, 1938:
We affirm the order on the excerpts from the opinion of the court below which appear in the Reporter's Note.
Order affirmed.