The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-08-23

|
waites time, and has a tendency to milead the
jury.
! Inc right of the court TO decide what cvi
dencc i',aii 90 20 the Jury, I never heard que.-
toned till in the courfe OF this trial The hon
cradle managers appear difoofcd to advocate a
d'herept doctrine, and as they claim the right
that the jury isouid decide the .lile without re-
E2rd'ng the opinion of the court as TO the law,
| 10 they feein to think that the court ought not
20 re'trlct the evidence TO the jury. And hence
thcy have exprelItd fome Indignation acanft
(, my honorable client, bccaufe when he told the
coun!ci in Fries's cafe, TINT they might go on as
they peaied, but Gill iubeet to the direction of
the court as TO what evidence they might Off, /:
On thai occaNon they eXciaimed---s the court
took upon themfe!ves to decide what evidence
lhoud go 10 the jury But perhaps tina, evil
dence which might have been rejected might
nave iniuenced the dection OF The Jury, and as
the jury nave right To- deride the law, uncon-
tro'ied 10y the court, they on ht to have before
them all that evidence which might poiii ply in
huerce their deciiion!' Charming doctrine !
| Thus the jury are not only to decide the law on
the idue, but lkewii. all Qucttions Of law which
ariie upon the proceedin.sin the caufe and up
on the evidence that is to be admitted. The
honorable managers feem TO forget that it is on
~ III conieGnence nf the right OF t ;tirv To rive
general verdict that they get incidentally the
! Po7ver OF deciding the law in any cafe, but that
tins cannot IN any manner enable them, either as
| 10 power or right, to have any control over the
court in any collateral! qIeftons. The madieft
en'huhais that ever yet advocated the rights Of
jurors has never quetioned the right OF the
court 10 determine upon the competency and
aahhii1nI!'ty or evidence. Such being the law
II was the duty ofJudgc Chlre, when the auef-
tion meant TO be etahhfhed was, that Mr.. Ad-
| ans Wi.kediy and coruptIy hcrificed the in
tefS't or the United States to Great Britain con-
tdFy I'D MS duty to prevent the vote of Mr.. ADJ
ans on that cccalon being given in evidence to
TUE jury, either as proper, directly 70 prove the
Iact' or from which they ought necefarily to
nteF II. And again repeat, if he had fufftred
iuch evidence to have been given to them as
proper and relevant, he would have been much
more deierving of impeachment.
'ave Hated that there are two WAYS Of prov
ing the iilie-ethcr by directly proving the f4q
~ iiiue, or By proving fome f,I9 from which
me f!ci N Hue ought legally 20 be inferred and
that IN the one cafe and the other ths court are
tne Judges as 10 the competency and the admit
nolhty o. shc teitimoIy. But 20 further; it
IS the court who havea right to determine whe-
Their o. not the fact in iIue o4Fbt to he Inferred
ron tact proved, CIR what fact, being proved,
VIII juitity jury in inierring and accordingly
H"d'ng the TACT in i'iue will, FIR, explain my
meaning. The queaion in iilue is a grant or no
grant OF a tract OF LAND the grant is the fact -
DC eUabli'hed no grant can be produced. bu.
evidence is given of poiei1ion for great length
A regular transte renee Of the property as haying
been eranted--payment OF rents to the fIccsf-
iorj OF the tuDpoied grantor, &c. the court not
on'y determine wi'dt triiimony is prnper to- ef-
taoliih theie fats, but they dire6 the iurv that
VI they believe he evidence, they then ought
| to ind that a grant had been given. On this
point refer to Cowper, .. Ii2, and Coke.
| z. 90, hr. If III Al action iiie6ifntuJ aT4nbGt
Tor money due, tie Defendant uieiis the Al of
limitation, and the plaintiff replies 4 promiG. to
pay within three wears. If on the trial of the
cauie, the plaintiff proves an zek1olvled,,ze1t of
the debt within the limited time, the purt will
i2'Tuct the jury, that i: they believe the fats 4,
theY o&t;ht to find from il, as bsine Efficient t.
vdence Tor the purpofe, the fact ia i1-ue, that
rs ola Pr7,nLts 70 pay. Yet If the Jury was to
md iPeciat verdict, Eating that within three
years the defendant had acknowledged the c,e BIZ,
sae co"rt consd not give Judgment, but muft
order GENRE ttaeiaJ de mono, becaufe the Jury
would not have found the faGt in ifue, bnt only
ftc. winch was, as evidence, {ufficient to have
lJ2hined them to have found by their verdit.
! nat the defendant did afume. AZ ain, in the
| cafe before fuppofed, evidence was given 70 the
Jury that The defendant had acknowledged the
| o>"t as atoreiad, the court would nftruGt the
Jury mat upon that evidence they ought to find
the defendant had pronifed, and if the Jury did
not give their verdict for the plaintiff, the court
would grant new trial. So, fir, in an action of
trovcr AID CONVENTION. Fit was proved that the
defendant had the thing in polItiiion for the
| convection of which the fut was brought, and
evidence is given that the plaintiff demanded the
| article from the defendant, and that he refufrd
10 dshverit, though this is not itfef a convert.
OF, and If the jury WAS to find a fpecial verdict
railing theie fatts the court could not give iudg-
| nent, yet the court would direGt the Jury that
npou iucl latt being proved, they ought TO find
ths FACT IN iilue, TO Wil the convention, aud if
the jarY was not to fnd for the plaintiff, the
conr, would grant new trial. Again, in the
caie Of an a:tion brought t. recover money aud
the itatute OF Limitation pIsaded---if the defen-
daut ao knowledgos thr jUG,cc of the deb;, but
at the fame time abiOiuteiy aud unequiyocally
declares that he never viii pay ANY p art of it +,
the court could initrutt the jury that uoon frch
evidence they could not find for the Plaintiff
Tor thai the acknOwIcGg OF the debt Being
Only preiumpye evidence OF prOmife to pay
1t, that preunPti0n was taken away when the
Acknowledgements was accompanied with Il d.
! rect nequivocadeclaratio that ne never would
| pay any part ut. 81 IN the cafe Of troyer and
conyerllGn, If the thing IN queaioI was large,
heavy daA uuWlei!y rs A large uiecs of tuahnv.