
    Thomson v. Church.
    That the jury misapprehended the legal consequence of their verdict, is not sufficient cause of arrest.
    AotioN on tbe case, for words. Tbe jury found a verdict for tbe plaintiff, and four pence damage.
    Mr. Tracy and Mr. Allen'moved in arrest of judgment, and alleged for cause,
    1. Tbat tbe jury, in tbe consideration of tbe case, were divided, six for acquitting tbe defendant, and six for bringing in small damages; but finally, they all agreed to bring in a verdict of four pence for tbe plaintiff supposing tbe law was so, tbat upon said verdict tbe plaintiff could not recover but four pence cost; and upon tbat being a fact, or not a fact, all tbe jurors consented to tbe verdict: And as tbe case was appealed from tbe lower court, by tbe defendant, tbe operation of law was sucb, tbat tbe whole cost will follow tbe verdict against tbe defendant; wbicb was not tbe verdict of tbe jury; nor was it tbe intention even of those jurors, who at first were of opinion, tbat they ought to give damages, tbat tbe plaintiff ought to’ recover bis whole bill of cost; — and bad they supposed tbat would have been tbe operation of law upon their verdict, not one of tbe jury would have consented to a verdict in favor of tbe plaintiff: — Therefore, tbe verdict was founded entirely on mistake.
    2. Tbe verdict against tbe defendant, in the present case, is founded on this idea — tbat be maliciously and falsely accused tbe plaintiff of perjury; wbicb idea tbe jury have contradicted in tbe most explicit terms, by saying, it is no more than four pence damage to tbe plaintiff; — and therefore have mistaken tbe law.
   By the whole Count.

Tbe motion is insufficient.— Tbe jury have, upon their oaths, found tbe defendant guilty; and tliougb they may Lave misapprehended tlxe consequence of their verdict, and have been thereby the more readily induced to agree to it — it shall, nevertheless, be intended, in support of the verdict, and to avoid an implication, that the jury have violated their oaths- — -that they found the facts according to the evidence before them, and the real conviction of their minds.

As to the second exception — The insignificance of the damages — They were discretionary with the jury; and from the particular circumstances of the case, the smallest damages may have well been presumed.  