Knight v. Inhabitants of Freeport

A new trial was granted, because the plaintiff’s son-in-law said to one of the jurors, that the cause was of great consequence to him; that he should have to pay the costs, if the cause should go against the plaintiff; and that the defence of the action was a spiteful thing on the part of the defendants.

After a verdict at the last October term for the plaintiff in review, and before judgment, the counsel for the defendants in review moved the Court for a new trial, on the ground, that one Abel A. Briggs, who was, a witness for Knight, on the trial of the cause, after the empannelling of the jury and before the trial, applied to Justin Kent, one of the jurors, and stated to him that this cause was of great consequence to him, Briggs; and, if it went against * Knight, he, Briggs, should have to pay the costs; and that the defending the action was a spiteful thing on the part of the said inhabitants of Freeport; the said counsel declaring, that they had no knowledge of the said facts, until after the jury had returned their said verdict. The juror testified to the truth of the foregoing statement; and added, that Knight was not present at the time, nor did the juror know that he, Knight, had any knowledge thereof. And it was admitted, that the said Briggs was Knight’s son-in-law, and did assist him in supporting his cause. The said motion being continued over to this term,