We conclude that the denial of the motion for mistrial was within the reasonable exercise of the trial court's discretion. See Genuario v. Finkler, 136 Conn. 500, 503, 72 A.2d 57 (1950). There is nothing in the record to support the claim of the defendant that alternate jurors may have participated in the discussions involving Norcross.
The denial of a motion for a mistrial made in the course of the trial is an interlocutory ruling which can only be reviewed on the basis of a finding. Genuario v. Finkler, 136 Conn. 500, 502, 72 A.2d 57; State v. Williamson, 134 Conn. 203, 204, 56 A.2d 460; see Wooster v. Wm. C. A. Fischer Plumbing Heating Co., 153 Conn. 700, 703, 220 A.2d 449. Accordingly, a relatively simple type of finding as prescribed by 649 of the Practice Book and limited to the circumstances of the ruling was proper and necessary for a review of that ruling by this court. See Practice Book 609. No finding relevant to the general issue of liability is, however, necessary or appropriate for a review of the court's refusal to set aside a verdict where it is claimed, as it was in this case, that the evidence and permissible inferences warranted a verdict different from that rendered.
The denial of a motion for a mistrial made in the course of a trial is an interlocutory ruling which can only be presented by a finding. Genuario v. Finkler, 136 Conn. 500, 502, 72 A.2d 57; State v. Williamson, 134 Conn. 203, 204, 56 A.2d 460. The defendant has, however, printed, in the appendix to his brief, the details of what he claims happened. From this recitation it does not appear that he moved for a mistrial but rather that he objected to the answer and moved that it be stricken. The court struck out the answer and immediately instructed the jury to disregard it. The same recital of what occurred also appears in the appendix to the state's brief.
Many of the defendant's assignments of error are answered by the facts which were found by the trial court and appear in the portions of the finding which are not attacked. The claims of law which were not made in the trial court are not now considered. Genuario v. Finkler, 136 Conn. 500, 501, 72 A.2d 57; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc., 44. The defendant claims that the alleged use of the passway by the seven plaintiffs in whose favor judgment was rendered was in common with the general public and that consequently they cannot claim that their use was exclusive.
After careful consideration and exhaustive research, we would have no difficulty affirming the trial judge in setting aside a jury verdict because of contact with a juror where (1) the contact was made in an effort to influence the juror by or on behalf of a party in whose favor the verdict was rendered or (2) the contact was such as would obviously influence the juror or (3) the trial judge finds the contact either influenced or probably influenced the juror.See Annot., 64 A.L.R.2d 158 (1959); Genuario v. Finkler, 136 Conn. 500, 72 A.2d 57 (1950); Kreig v. Grant, 248 Iowa 396, 80 N.W.2d 724 (1957); Pillsbury-Ballard v. Scott, 283 S.W.2d 387 (Ky. 1955); Russell v. Pere Marquette Railroad Co., 245 Mich. 624, 223 N.W. 230 (1949) cert. denied, 279 U.S. 864, 49 S.Ct. 480, 73 L.Ed. 1003 (1928); Stone v. Griffin Baking Co., 257 N.C. 103, 125 S.E.2d 363 (1962); Noble v. McAlister Dairy Farms, Inc., 52 Ohio App. 52, 114 N.E.2d 540 (1952); Curry v. Wilson, 301 Pa. 467, 152 A. 746 (1930); Schoenrock v.Eib, 75 S.D. 613, 71 N.W.2d 82 (1955); Hines v. Parry, 238 S.W. 886 (Tex. 1922); Palm v. Churnowsky, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 405, 67 S.W. 165 (1902); Sun Life Assurance Co. v. Cushman, 22 Wn.2d 930, 158 P.2d 101 (1945); 47 Am. Jur.2d Jury Selection 300 (1969). However, none of these things appears here.
I. Conversion To determine if there has been a conversion, the controlling issue is whether Mrs. Wroblew made a gift of her money to the defendants. Genuario v. Finkler, 136 Conn. 500, 501, 72 A.2d 57 (1950). "To constitute a valid gift inter vivos of personal property, there must be not only a delivery of possession of the property but also an intent on the part of the donor that title shall pass immediately.
Many cases have reached consistent results in upholding denials of new trial motions. See Bernier v. National Fence Co, 176 Conn. 622 (1979), where one juror read an article in local newspaper concerning the trial revealing facts not before the jury; Bluett v. Eli Skating Club, 133 Conn. 99 (1946) where derogatory racial remarks made by a juror concerning the race to which one of the jurors and counsel for the plaintiff belonged; Genuario v. Finkler, 136 Conn. 500, 503 (1950) where one juror had a conversation with certain persons who were not members of the jury; Klingeman v. MacKay, supra, where the jury found to have referred to dictionary definition of "proximate cause;" one juror also found to have reduced his thoughts to writing and submitted this to the other jurors. After responding to two questions from the jury, the court gave a cautionary instruction regarding the duty of the jury to decide the case fairly, based upon the law and the evidence.