January 5, 1916 - Mistrial because of juror's strange action . . .

As a follow-up to the letter Joe wrote to Helen on January 3, 1916 here are two of three articles that hit the newspapers on January 5, 1916. All of that hard work and this small mistake changes the outcome. I am continuing to do research to see what happened when the case was brought back to court and what the verdict was.

 MISTRIAL FOUND BECAUSE JUROR’S STRANGE ACTION

Judge Gager Dismissed Jury in Auto Accident Case After Notification.

JUROR-HANDED NOTE TO DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL

Intention Was Honest, but Oath Was Unwittingly Broken, Said Court.

Through an incident about as ex­ceptional as ever recorded in jury tri­als in this county the case of Benja­min Feinman, administrator, against Caspar D. Wallace, was this morning taken from the jury because of the threat of mistrial.
A juror just before court opened handed to Judge A. B. Beers of coun­sel for Mr. Wallace a slip of paper which stated that there was a juror sitting on the case from the town where the accident happened.
The juror who handed the slip of paper to Judge Beers, was William H. Wessels of Greenwich. Judge Beers immediately informed Judge Edwin B. Gager and his honor, after thinking it over decided that the jury should no longer be retained on the matter.

Oath Violated.

It was not the presence of a juror from Bridgeport which had anything to do with Judge Gager's decision, but it was the fact that a juror had violat­ed his oath, unintentionally as Judge Gager said, in communicating with persons not on the jury regarding the case, which led the court to rule a mistrial.
Juror Wessels was very sorry when he found out how much trouble he had made over a matter of no concern. There is nothing in the law to prevent a juror from a town in which a case is returned sitting on that case. Mr. Wessels thought it did. He apologized after Judge Gager dis­missed the jury.

Has Jury Experience.

The curious thing about it is that Mr. Wessels is a man of considerable jury experience. He is in business in East Portchester in Greenwich, and is a man of the highest standing in that town. He is a relation of form­er Mayor Wessels of this city.
The action on trial is a suit to re­cover $10,000 for the death of a boy of four years, killed 'in April, 1914 on Congress Street in an automobile ac­cident.
The trial was commenced yesterday. Judge Alfred B. Beers and Judge Carl Foster appeared for the defendant, At­torney Joseph G. Shapiro for the plaintiff. A considerable part of the evidence had been put in when court recessed yesterday afternoon.

Hands Note to Judge Beers.

This morning when the court was about to open Juror Wessels handed the note to Judge Beers. The latter quickly realized that a situation had suddenly presented itself which must be brought to the attention of the court. Innocent as the purpose might be, such communication was contrary to the law.
Judge Gager was informed and he also realized the gravity of the seem­ingly unwitting action. After some consideration Judge Gager decided to dismiss the jury from further consid­eration of the case.

Court Calls Jury.

The jury was called in and Judge Gager addressed them. He said he regretted having to take the course he was about to, but under the cir­cumstances it was necessary. He also regretted having to name the juror. He told the jury that Mr. Wessels had communicated with the counsel one side.
Judge Gager went on to say that Mr. Wessels had informed counsel that there was a man on the panel from the town where the accident occurred. Judge Gager said this was nothing in itself. There was no rea­son for disqualification on that ac­count. Mr. Wessels had acted hon­estly, one might almost say, he had, been too honest.
The court read the jurors' oath which swears a juror not to com­municate with any one regarding the case on trial, except a member of the jury. This oath, the court believ­ed, had been violated, unwittingly, it is true, but none the less violated. For this reason, his honor considered it proper to dismiss the jury from furth­er hearing upon the case. His hon­or said further that if the jury thought anything was wrong it should be communicated to the court, which was impartial.
Mr. Wessels stood up manfully and made an apology for his act. He did not realize what the consequences of his act were. He hoped the court would excuse him.
It turned out from a study of the jury panel that there were in reality two Bridgeport men among the twelve, John H. Colgan of 301 Arctic street and Isaac P. Turney the well-known West End newsdealer.
The incident created a considerable, stir about the court house. The old­est inhabitant could not recall any­thing quite like it since the building was put up nearly thirty years ago.

JUROR PASSES NOTE, DAMAGE CASE HALTED

Court  Withdraws Wallace Damage Suit Because of W. H. Wessels' Action.

OATH IS INNOCENTLY BROKEN; NO CENSURE

Greenwich Man Only Wanted to Tell Counsel that One Juror Lived Where Accident Occurred.

Because Juror William H. Wessels of Greenwich passed a note to Attorney A. B. Beers, informing the latter that there was a Bridgeport man on the jury, which was considering the $10,000 dam­age suit of Benjamin Feinman, administrator, against Casper D. Wallace, Judge Ed­win B. Gager this morning in the Civil Superior Court discharged the jury from further consideration in the case, holding that Juror Wessels had innocently broken his oath as a juror, and under the cir­cumstances the court thought that the case should be with­drawn from the jury. Juror Wessels publicly apologized to the court and the apology was accepted.

VIOLATION INNOCENT

There were two men from this city sitting as jurors on the case, John H. Colgan and Isaac P. Turney. It is understood that Juror Wessels referred to Mr. Colgan in his note to At­torney Beers. Before court opened this morning, Juror Wessels passed a note to Attorney Beers conveying the information that a man from the place in which the accident was al­leged to have occurred was acting as a juror. Attorney Beers felt that it was his duty to inform the court of the note, and did so.
Judge Gager immediately took the matter under consideration, and after the jury had been called, he informed them that after thinking the. matter over, he had concluded that he would dismiss them from further considera­tion of the case. He said that one of the jurors had seen fit to hand a slip to one of the counsel in the case that there was a certain juror from the town in which the accident oc­curred, and that such action on the juror's part was an innocent breach of his oath. The court told the jury that it was the duty of each juror to keep his own counsel and that the law provides he shall not speak on the matter he shall have in hand, except with the jurors on the case.

Juror Not Censured

It was Judge Gager's opinion that Juror Wessels had acted with honest motives in  passing the note  to  the lawyer, and he did not censure the juror. He told the jurors that while they must not speak about any phase | of a case, they may have under consideration to anyone but a member of the jury, they had the right to men­tion anything which they thought should come to the attention of the court, to the judge. Judge Gager stated that the attorney did his duty in calling the court's attention to the fact that he had received the note.
It is understood that Juror Wessels received his information from an­other member of the jury, and that he gave the information to the law­yer for the defense, thinking that the latter should know that there was a juror from the town where the acci­dent occurred. There seemed to be no question but what Juror Wessels had the highest motive in passing the information to the lawyer and he felt badly over the sudden termination of the case because of his action, for be­fore Judge Gager had finished talking to the jury, he arose from his seat in the jury box and said, "I would like to apologize publicly to the court." The court accepted the apology. History of Case. Feinman sued Wallace for $10,000 damages claiming that the latter's automobile struck and killed his four-year-old son, Samuel, on Congress street, and that the death was caused by the reckless manner in which the defendant's machine was being operated.
Shapiro & Shapiro represented the plaintiff, and Attorneys Foster and Beers the defendant. There being no work for the jury this week, Judge Gager excused them until next Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock.

It appears from this article that the jury was excused until Tuesday January 11.

I did a little research about Judge Gager and found a photograph from the firm he was with at one time in Derby CT as seen below.

 

In the photograph are Col. Wm. B. Wooster (L) with three members of his Derby law firm who went on to become judges - William H.  Williams, Chief Justice David Torrance, and Edwin B. Gager.

I was also able to locate his obituary in New New York Times from April 29, 1922.

The next letter will be posted on January 10.