
    J. R. Reaves and others vs. W. H. Moody.
    
      New Trial — Affidavit of Jurymen.
    
    A new trial will not be granted on an affidavit by four of tire jurymen, made three weeks after the trial, that they had not agreed to the verdict.
    BEFORE ALDEIGH, <T., AT MARION, STRING TERM, 1867.
    Trover for the conversion of two bales of cotton. The case was tried 21st March, and the verdict was for the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed on the ground that the verdict was not sustained by the evidence.
    On the 15th April, 1857, four of the jurymen who had tried the case made affidavit before a magistrate “that the verdict rendered in ” the case “ was not their verdict; that they never agreed to it; that they would have objected at the time of its publication but they did not know it was their province to do so, and they are not satisfied therewith.”
    On this affidavit the defendant submitted an additional ground of appeal, because the “ verdict rendered was not the verdict of twelve men as usual in the Courts of law.”
    
      /Sellers, for the motion.
    
      Evans, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

DuNKIN, C. J.

This was an action of trover for two bales of cotton, tried before Mr. Justice Aldrich, at Marion, Spring Term, 1867. The issue depended entirely on the evidence, in wbicb there was some discrepancy, but which was submitted to the jury, under a charge of the Judge, to which no objection was taken. Their verdict was for the plaintiff; and the grounds of appeal submitted to the Judge object only to the sufficiency of the evidence. That depends on the degree of credit given to the witnesses, and this Court is not prepared to controvert their conclusions.

The cause was tried on 21st March. Some three weeks afterwards, to wit, on 15th April, four of the jury made an affidavit before a magistrate that they had not agreed to the verdict; and upon this, an additional ground was taken, that it was not the verdict of twelve men. It has been long settled that this ground cannot avail the appellant. The precise point was adjudicated more than half a century ago. See Freeman vs. Collins, (Brev. MS. Reports, cited 1 Rice Dig. 57.) But the whole subject is elaborately discussed and the authorities reviewed in Smith vs. Culbertson, (9 Rich. 108.) It is difficult to add anything to what is there stated against the admissibility of such affidavits.

The motion is dismissed.

WARDLAW and INGLis, A- JJ-, concurred.

Motion dismissed.  