F.lmERAL !UtPO'R'rER, vol. 45.

ported since the act of;Maroh 3,1887, beena'6le to:find,conui.ining upon this precise question. For the plaintiff, it may weU be said here ilIhatby no act ofMs do these papers bElcomeapart of-the record of ease, and there is ,no intimation thatthel'ehasbeen any effort on hispal't to make these records unnecessarily prolix. He has rendered thesevices charged for, the law prescribes a fee for ·the same, and he the amount charged ($162.80) for reshould beaUowed these fees, cording subprenas,wMch were never, in equity and admiralty, entered upon the 'final. record ora cause. Rev. St. § 650;' Sup. Ct. Ad. Rule No. 52. . Perhaps upon this record a decision ought to .have been reached at once, upon the ground that the defendant has shown no mistake of the court in the original approval of the accounts containing these fees, as held in U.S:v. Jones, 134U. S. 483488,,10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 615, when Mr. Justice LAMAR, in delivering the opinion of tlIe supreme court in a suit brought by a commissioner against the United States for his fees, says: "The apprtivaI ofa accOliilt by a circiiit court of the United States, undl'r the act of February 22, 1875, (18 St. 333,) is prima faoie evi· dence of the correctness of the items of that account, and. in the abSence of clear and uneqUivocal proof of mistake on the part of the court, it should be conclusive." . But as such a course would leave these questions to be hereafter decided upon the presentation of subsequent acconnts, containing like items for approval by the court,. it has been deemed the better course to thus examine the matter at length here, and the result is that upon the whole a decree should be entered for the petitioner, in accordance with the foregoing findings, for the sum of 81,066, and costs, and it is accl>rdinily so ordered.

JOHNSON 11. HOBJ.RT (Oircu{t OOU", D.

et al.

March 81, 1891,)

Minnesota, Thwa. D!1l'f.BfmI.

JtmT-MJSOONDUOT-MEALS AT EXPENSE 011' A PARTY.

Wllen tlle jury were sent out it was suggested by the court that no provision was madeby law lor furnisl1ing meals to the jury, and counsel were asked, if it became necessary to give the jury refresJiments, whether tlle parties would share tlle expense. Defendants' colin'liel declined to' do so.' Meals were subsequently provided and paid for by plaintift. Helit, that a verdict in his favor must be set aside.

At Law. On motion for new trial. Arctander &; Arctander, for plaintiff· . D. A. Sea-combe, for defendant.
NELSON, J. I am constrained to grant in this case. Anciently it was the rule that"a verdictwRs rendered void by the jury's eat·

DAVIS,iI. CHICAGO, ST.

P., M·.&O.

R. CO.

543

ing and drinking between the charge of the court and tlie v,erdict. The origin of this regulation is a little curious. Dr. Gilbert Stuart, in his II Historical Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of the British Constitution," says "that from the propensity of the older Britons to indulge excessively in eating and drinking has proceeded the restriction upon jurors and jurymen to refrain from meat and drink, and to be even held in custody, until they had agreed upon their verdict." Jurors in our day, perhaps, are not unlike their' forefathers; at least the congress thinks so. This rule in modern times has been so far modified that a verdict cannot be impeached on account of the jury eating after they have received the charge, and are sentont, unless it appears that the refreshments were furnished at the expense of the prevailing party. The congress has made no provision for furnishing meals to jurors, except in United States cases; so that in all 'cases in which the United States is ilOta' party the ancient rule appears indirectly to be favored. Meals were furnished the jury by the plaintiff's counsel after they were sent out, and before verdict, and the plaintiff prevailed in the suit. I should not ordinarily set aside a verdict and grant a new. trial for that reason unless it appeared that the defeated party had suffered on that 'account; but when the jury were sent out in this case it was suggested by the courtthatho provision was made by law for furnishing meals to ,the jury, and counsel were asked, if a necessity arose for giving the jury refreshments,whether the parties plaintiff and defendant would share the expense, whereupon the defendants' counsel declined to do so. All trials by jury ought to be effectually guarded against any kind of influences by which a party may derive any possible advantage, and, as counsel for the defeated party declined to sbare the expense of providing refreshments, and the same were furnished and paid for by the prevailing party, a new trial must be granted under the circumstances, although it does not appear tbattheverdict was ,determined thereby. Verdict set aside, and new trial granted; costs to abide event of same.

DAVIS 11. CHICAGO, ST.

P., M. & O. R. Co.

(OirCwU(]oui-t; D:,¥'£nnesota, TMrdDWfsW'n. March 80,1891.)
CABBIB1l8 01' PASSENGERS-WHEN THE RELATION EXISTS.

Deceased and other employes of defendant railroad company had borrowed a car and engine for their own purposes, by permission of defendant's yard-mastel', and in the negligent management thereof pl!rlntiff's intestate was killed. ,Held. that the relation of carrier and passenger did not exist, and plaintiff reClOver. ' ,

At Law. On motion for new trial. Williat718 <t&hotmtmaker, for plaintiff; J.B. Hqwe,:8. and O. D. O'Brien, for defendant.