Orme v. Pratt

Motion by Mr. R. S. Coxe, for the defendant, for a new trial, because one of the jurors was brother-in-law of the plaintiff, a fact not known to the defendant, who was not personally present at the trial, nor to his counsel. The motion was supported by affidavits of the fact. The other eleven jurors made affidavit that the jury was unanimous in their verdict, immediately after their retirement, and that the other juror did not say or do any thing to influence the verdict.

Motion overruled.