Catasauqua Mfg. Co. v. Hopkins

Citations

• 141 Pa. 30
• 21 A. 638
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1037

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. When, upon the challenge of a juror for cause, the court sits in the platee of triers, to determine the question of impartiality as a matter of ■ fact, its determination thereof is conclusive and cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court; although, when Hie juror’s position is such that his incompetency is a conclusion of law, the rule is different.</p> <p>2. A juror having testified upon his voir dire that he was on intimate terms with one of the defendants who was his customer, and that said defendant had talked with him on several occasions about the ease, giving him statements of facts and explanations in regard to it, a challenge for cause should have been sustained: Per Mr. Justice Williams.</p> <p>(a) A court rule provided that the plaintiff’s bill of particulars should contain a full, direct and concise statement of his cause of action, and that evidence of facts outside of it should not be received. H. and S. were sued for a conspiracy to defraud by means of false reports, made by H., plaintiff’s employee, of the amounts of iron purchased from S. at one of plaintiff’s mills:</p> <p>3. The court rule did not render inadmissible evidence of the commission of similar frauds by S., at another mill of plaintiff, in which II. was not concerned and which were not mentioned in the bill of particulars, the testimony being offered solely to show guilty knowledge by S. of the return of excessive weights of his iron, and to contradict a denial thereof by him.</p> <p>4. In an action for a conspiracy to defraud, it is error for the court to call the attention of the jury to the fact that, if a verdict and judgment should be given for the plaintiff, the defendants will not be entitled to the benefit of the exemption laws and will be liable to arrest on a capias ad satisfaciendum.</p> <p>o. It is error, also, to charge that, before finding against the defendants, the jury ought to be satisfied of their guilt by “ clear and full evidence,” and t