Gallatin County IL Archives Court.....Forester, Vs. Guard 1819-31
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarch.org/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarch.org/il/ilfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 4, 2008, 11:08 pm

Source: Reports Of Cases Illinois
Written: 1819-31

November Term 1823. Vandalia.


FORESTER AND FUNKHOUSER, Appellants, V. GUARD, SIDDELL & Co., Appellees.

APPEAL FROM GALLATIN.

The statements of jurors ought not to be received to impeach their verdict. 

An affidavit, setting forth the discovery of new testimony, should state the 
name of the witness, and also the facts he can prove.

Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Reynolds. In this case the only error 
relied upon is, that the court below erred in granting a new trial. There were 
four reasons assigned for a new trial: 1. The verdict was against law and 
evidence; 2. The discovery of new testimony; 3. The verdict of the jury was 
predicated upon the statements of the jurors in relation to the controversy 
while in the jury room; 4. One of the jurors separated from the jury while 
deliberating.

The fact that the verdict was predicated upon the statements of the jurors 
after they withdrew, is disclosed by the affidavit of one of the plaintiffs 
below, founded upon the confessions of one of the jurors. This the court think 
improper. The statements of jurors ought not to be received to impeach their 
verdicts. (a) (1)

The affidavit, disclosing the discovery of material testimony, does not state 
the name of the witness, nor the facts he could prove. It is therefore 
insufficient. An affidavit should state the facts, that the court may judge of 
their materiality. If the new trial had been granted upon the affidavit alone, 
the court would say it was improperly granted, but as there were other 
grounds, to wit, that the verdict was against evidence, the court can not say 
there was error—on the contrary, the facts in the case seem to have warranted 
the interposition of the court. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

------------------
(a) Contra. Sawyer v. Stevenson, ante, page 24.

(1) See note 2, to the case of Sawyer v. Stevenson, ante, page 24.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases at Common Law and in Chancery, Argued and Determined in the 
Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, From its First Organization in 1819, 
to the End of December Term, 1831. By Sidney Breese, Counsellor at Law. Second 
Edition, with Additional Notes, By Edwin Beecher. Chicago: Callaghan & 
Company, 1877.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/il/gallatin/court/forester227gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ilfiles/

File size: 2.9 Kb