DOYLE V. DNITED STATES. 269 �DoYLE V. United STATES^ {Circuit Court, JT. D. Illinois. Decetnber 6, 1881.) �1. CBlMIiNAL PrACTICE — COMMUNICATIONS FROM THB JtTDGE TO THE ■ UET. �Though it isan irregularite in a judge to coramunlcate pnvately with one ot the jurors wliile they are deliberating upon their verdict, yet such irregu- larity furnishes no sufflcient groiind for reversai, where it is not clear that it worked, of necessity, a prejudice to the plaintiii in errer. �2. Same— Sealbd Verdicts. �Under the practice of thts district, where itis agreed, in a criminal case, that a verdict may be signed and sealed by the jurors and delivered in court, and they are required to meet the court when it again convenos, it is the right of the defendant to have the jury present in court when the verdict is op«ned. �On Error to the District Court. Bangs e Kirkland, for plantiff in error. �I. The court erred in privately commanicating with one of the jurors while they were deliberating upon their verdict. "Whart. Cr. Pr. (8th Ed.) §§ 714, 830; 2 Grah. & Wat., New Trials, 360; State v. Alexander, 66 Mo. 148; Sar- gent v. Roberts, 1 Pick. 341 ; State v. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308; Taylor v. State, 42 Texas, 504, �Authorities to the next point also cited. �II. The court erred in denying the defendant's motion to have the jury polled. 3 Bl. Com. 377; 10 Bac. Abr. tit. "Verdict, B;" 1 Bish. Grim. Proc. § 1002 ; Lawrence v, Stearns, 11 Pick. 501 ; U. S. v. Potter, 6 McLean, 188, 189; Nomaqm v. People, Breese, 145; Root y.Sherioood,6 Johns. Q8;Biggs v. Cook, 4 Gilm. 352; Saryent v. State, 11 Ohio, 473; Sutliff v. OUbert, 8 Ohio, 408 ; State v. Engles, 13 Ohio, 490 ; U. S. v. Bennett, 16 Blatchf . 374 ; Martin v. Morelock, 32 111. 485; Reems v. People, 30 III. 256; Crotty v. Wyatt, 3 Bradw. 388; Priee v. State, 38 Miss. 531; Womr v. N. T. 0. R. Co. 52 N. T. 437; Qoodunn v. Appleton, 22 Me. 456. �Joseph B. Leake, U. S. Atty., for defendant in error. �I. The defendant had no common-law right to poil the jury. Com. v. Roby, 12 Pick. 496, 511; Martin v. Maveriok, 1 McCord, 24; State v. Allen, Id. 525. In civil cases. Beal v. Hall, 22 Ga. 431. �II. It has never been the practice in the federal courts. Bunlap v. Mon- roe, 1 Cranch, 536; U. S. y. Anthony, U Blatchf. 209; U. S. v. Bridges, 10 Cent. Law J. 7. �Dbummond, C. J., (prally.) At the last May term of the district court the plaintiflf in error was tried on an indictment for passing false and forged bonds of the United States, knowing them to be forged. He was found guilty by the jury, and a motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and sentence of imprisonment passed ��� �
