Orme v. Pratt

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Orme v. Pratt

4 D.C. 124

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 15, 1830

StatusPublished

This text of 4 D.C. 124 (Orme v. Pratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Orme v. Pratt, 4 D.C. 124 (circtddc 1830).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 D.C. 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orme-v-pratt-circtddc-1830.