1784.
A
MOTION was made, the 10th of November, on the part of the defendant, to fet afide the return of the jury of inquiry, on affidavit of irregular proceedings ; and the Court granted a rule to fhew caufe &c.And now two of the jurors attended and depofed, that Leib's book, fupported by his own oath, had been admitted as evidence of the delivery of a quantity of leather by Leib, to the order of Bolton, in part difcharge of an agreement between them. But being afked, whether they founded their inqueft in any degree upon that evidence, they faid it was founded upon that, and concurrent teftimony.
In fupport of the motion it was contended, that, though the admiffion of books in the manner above ftated, had been cuftomary ; yet that the cuftom ought not to be carried farther than to prove work done, or wares delivered ; that the purpofe for which they had been introduced, on the prefent occafion, arofe upon a collateral point, to eftablifh a fett off in diminution of the damages, and that it was, therefore, irregular to admit them. With refpect to the concurrent teftimony mentioned by the jurors, it was faid, that as neither the nature, or effect of it, appeared to the Court, it might have been even more improper than the allowance of the books as evidence ; but that, in all events, the inqueft ought to be fet afide, as what did appear, fhews it to have been raifed fo far upon an erroneous foundation.
But, by thecourt: We will not fet afide the verdicts of juries of inquiry ; nor the reports of referrees, upon frivolous grounds. Nor will we examine into the effect of any particular piece of evidence upon the minds of the jury ; for, unlefs, it appears, that there was no proper evidence before them, we muft prefume that they had fufficient grounds for their inqueft.
Sergeant for the plaintiff—Lewis and Levy for the defendant. See Caʃes Temp. Hard. 381.