Document Type

Response or Comment

Publication Date



A recent Oklahoma case raises one phase of a question which has been perplexing the courts ever since jury trials were invented, and in regard to which there is a great contrariety of opinion. After a verdict had been rendered for the plaintiff in a personal injury suit, the defendant made a motion for a new trial on the ground of misconduct of the jury, and in support of his motion offered the affidavits of several of the jurors to the effect that the verdict was determined upon as the result of an agreement whereby each one of the jurors was to set down on paper the sum to which he thought the plaintiff entitled, the final verdict to consist of the amount obtained by dividing the sum of the respective amounts so set down by the number of jurors. The trial court refused to hear these affidavits and its ruling was sustained by the supreme court on the ground of public policy. Tulsa Street Railway Co. v. Jacobson (Okl. 1913), 136 Pac. 410.