Opinion
May 13, 1941.
June 30, 1941.
Practice — New trial — Misconduct of court officer in charge of jury.
On appeal from an order granting a new trial, it was held that the court below did not abuse its discretion, where it appeared that toward midnight, after the jury had been deliberating some hours, they inquired of the court officer in charge about sleeping accommodations and were informed by him, or understood him to say, that they could not separate until after they had agreed on a verdict, and that about two and a half hours later they found for the defendant.
Argued May 13, 1941.
Before SCHAFFER, C. J., MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON and PARKER, JJ.
Appeal, No. 104, Jan. T., 1941, from order of C. P. McKean Co., Feb. T., 1940, No. 236, in case of H. D. Brainard v. Earl F. Patterson, Jr., et al. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before HUBBARD, P. J.
Verdict for defendant. Order entered granting new trial. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned related to the action of the court below in granting a new trial.
W. D. Gallup, with him F. D. Gallup and E. G. Potter, of Gallup, Potter Gallup, for appellants.
R. T. Mutzabaugh and F. M. Nash, of Nash Mutzabaugh, for appellee, were not heard.
This appeal is from a new-trial order made in consequence of the conduct of the court officer in charge of the jury. Toward midnight, after the jury had been deliberating some hours, they inquired of the officer about sleeping accommodations and were informed by him, or understood him to say, they could not separate until after they had agreed on a verdict. Sometime about 2:30 a. m. they found for the defendant. The learned judge held that, in the circumstances, the verdict had been coerced within the rule applied in Welshire v. Bruaw, 331 Pa. 392, 200 A. 67. There was no abuse of discretion. The other questions need not be referred to.
Judgment affirmed.