
    John Kent vs. City of Charlestown.
    Interest of a juror, if known to counsel before the trial, although not known to his client until after verdict, is no ground for granting the client a new trial.
    Motion for a new trial, on the ground that one of the jurors was an inhabitant of Charlestown. The plaintiff made affidavit that he did not personally know, before the verdict, that the juror was an inhabitant of Charlestown ; but it was admitted that this fact was known to his attorney and counsel, who tried the case.
    
      M. G. Cobb, for the plaintiff.
    
      J. Q. A. Griffin. for the defendant.
   By the Court.

The motion cannot be granted. The client is bound by the knowledge of his counsel, with whom the conduct of his case was intrusted. The counsel may have thought the juror in question more desirable for his client, and have had more confidence in him than in any other on the panel. That such an exception, if known before the trial, and not seasonably taken, is thereby waived, is settled, on the most satisfactory principles. Fox v. Hazelton, 10 Pick. 275. Davis v. Allen, 11 Pick. 468. Orrok v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 21 Pick. 471.

Motion overruled.  