You've painted a very specific picture here. You come from the perspective that having a vested interest is THE requirement for judging over a case. Now, this interest is here the locality and familiarity as well as the dependency on a company which feeds the town.
I agree that what I would call determination (not zeal) to judge fairly may take place. IF the logging company IS seen as a valuable enterprise for the whole area. But the question would be, what point of accusation towards a single townsperson could such a company make, arguing that its stability or very existence was in jeopardy?
To be in jeopardy as a company through a damaging act by an individual, I can only imagine that it would be a case of a powerful individual (journalist, for example) who tries to damage the logging companies reputation. Then this journalist must have a lot of power (which usually is not the case if you are acting individually, but collectively). Since badmouthing a company by individuals in private usually does not harm the company in total.