Jessup v. Eldridge
Jessup v. Eldridge, 1 N.J.L. 460 (1795)
Headnotes
If a paper relating to the cause, though of little or no moment, be given to the jury by a party, after they have begun their deliberations, without the consent of the other party, it will vitiate the verdict.
Summary
On certiorari to Justice Tatem, of Gloucester county.
The justice returned that the action was brought for the recovery of three years’ rent, claimed by Eldridge as due him from Jessup; as the jury were going out of the bar, the plaintiff brought the justice a paper containing the charge of the three years’ rent, and requested him to hand it to the jury, alleging that Jessup had agreed that it should go to them, and the justice, in consequence, delivered it. Some of the affidavits stated that the justice had delivered the paper to the jury after they had commenced their deliberations, and Eldridge had confessed that Jessup had not expressed his consent.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Kinsey, C. J.
If the paper had been delivered to the jury at the bar without consent', it would have been error; and— Pee Cue.
The judgment must be reversed, because it appears that this paper, although of little or no consequence, yet relating to the cause, was delivered to the jury after they had retired, and under a deception.
Judgment reversed.
Davenport, for plaintiff in certiorari.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.