
    [t] CLARKE and al. against COLE and al.
    
    Jurors separating for a short time, and before verdict, but without improper practice of the successful party, no ground for new trial.
    This was a motion to set aside a verdict, on an allegation that the jury on the trial of the cause, after they had retired to consider of their verdict, and before they had delivered it in court, had separated. It appeared by affidavits, that some of the jurymen, while considering of their verdict, went out of the room and returned in a few minutes. Ther.e was no improper practice of the party in favor of whom the verdict was rendered; nor, indeed, any circumstance of aggravation.'
    
      Mr. Griffith, submitted to the court, whether this was not such a misbehavior of the jurymen as would be sufficient of itself to set aside the verdict.
    
      Mr. Woodruff, the Attorney-General, on the other side, said, that although this might be a misbehavior [202] on the part of the jurymen, which the court before whom the cause was tried, might have animadverted on, yet that it was not such a case as would induce the court to set aside the verdict, and cited the case of Lord St. John v. Abbot, Barnes, 441, where a like distinction was taken by the court.
   The Court.

— Refused the rule.

Cited in Oram v. Bishop, 7 Halst, 153. 
      
       Vide 7 Halst. 158. — Ed.
     