
    Handley v. Leigh.
    Answers to interrogatories propounded by one party to t-he other may be read in evidence by either party if they have not been stricken out upon exceptions; if the answers go beyond the questions, exceptions should be taken on that ground when they aro returned into court, and cannot be taken when the party answering offers to read the answers to the jury.
    There is no objection to the assessment of the amount of a verdict by each juror setting down the amount which lie conscienciously believes to bo right, adding the whole together and divided by twelve, if all the jurors assent to the amount after it has thus been ascertained.
    To permit a juror to make an affidavit of the improper conduct of himself and his fellows cannot be too mueli reprobated.
    Error from Bowie. Suit by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error for the value of a certain quantity of corn. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Motion for a new trial overruled, the plaintiff entering a remittitur as to part of the judgment. In support of the motion for a new trial the affidavit of one of the jurors was filed to the effect that the jury ascertained the amount of the verdict by eacli juror setting down the amount which lie was in favor of finding, adding the whole up and dividing by twelve, the number of the jurors.
    The defendant had filed interrogatories to the plaintiff, which had been answered; and the defendant declining to read the answers in evidence to the .jury, they were read by the plaintiff, the defendant objecting aud reserving the point by hill of exceptions.
    There was no statement of facts.
    
      J. T. Mills and S. M. Pirkey, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Moseley and Peters, for defendant in error.
   Lipscomb, J.

The questions presented by the bill of exceptions and the .affidavit of the juror are the only grounds that can he considered by us on the record as presented.

It has been heretofore decided by this court that when the answers of a-party to interrogatories filed have been returned into court, either can use such testimony if the answers are responsive to the questions propounded. There does not appear to have been any exceptions taken to the propriety of the answers to the interrogatories in the court below. The objection, as presented by the bill of exceptions, is to the right of the plaintiff using them. Had the answers gone beyond the questions,'the exceptions should have been taken on that ground when returned into court. This not having been done, the objection cannot be raised in this court.

'The objection to the verdict on the ground of the method adopted by the jury to come to an agreement, even if it had been sustained by other evidence than the affidavit of one of the jurors, does not seem to be well founded. If the jury should believe that by that method they could arrive at a more equitable conclusion as to the value of the corn, they certainly had a right to adopt it. They believed that by adopting an average price, according to the different estimates made, they all conceded something of their own opinions to others of their fellows. There was nothing unreasonable in this. An obstinate adherence to the opinion entertained by each of them individually would prevent their ever agreeing. It is different from casting lots for the verdict, so often condemned by the courts. But to permit a juror to make an affidavit of the impropriety of himself and his fellows cannot be too much reprobated, and was expressly denounced by this court in the case of Mason v. Bussell’s Heirs. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  