
    (26 Misc. Rep. 183.)
    KLEIN v. HARDING.
    (Oneida County Court.
    January, 1899.)
    Judgments—Vacating—Remarks op Counsel.
    A jury found there was no cause of action, if defendant would pay plaintiff a small amount, which verdict the justice refused to receive; whereupon defendant’s counsel remarked that, if the jury would find that there was no cause of action, defendant would pay the amount named, and the jury so found. Held, that such improper remark vitiates the verdict.
    Appeal from justice court.
    Action by John Klein against Lyman S. Harding. From a judgment, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed.
    L. M. Martin, for appellant.
    T. S. Jones, for respondent.
   DUNMORE, J.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether a verdict) obtained in the way this verdict was, should be permitted to stand. The first finding of the jury implied that they found an indebtedness of $9.50 owing to plaintiff, but for some reason they evidently did not "want to throw the costs upon defendant, and therefore brought in the conditional verdict. The justice very properly refused to receive it, and sent the jury back to their room. Defend; ant’s counsel (but not the counsel ivho appears on this appeal) not only violated his duty, but violated the law, in proposing to the jury that, if they would find a verdict of no cause of action, defendant would pay plaintiff $9.50. Such a proposition, made in open court, is a willful contempt, and should have been punished as such. Any clandestine interference with a jury by a party or his counsel has always been held to have vitiated a verdict. Such an improper suggestion as this, although made in open court, is nearly as reprehensible, and may be equally dangerous. The judgment must be reversed, with costs.

Judgment reversed, with costs.  