Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-06-17

lowing tr'iiica'e. taken aud signed by ali
the Jurors Immediately after the Transaction.
when all the circumstances were fresh in
their minds owe, the jNors. empannel.
led in the case of Kiuohloe vs. Scott. in as.
sumpsit. tried on The fourth dav of Prince
William count, court. al lis June session. in
the year 1918. do certify. that on that &C.
casion we. ioImed and returned verdict in
the following words 1--WE OF the iurv fnd
for tie rlainia' and assess his dainages TO
l2 dolls. 81 cents. with interest from the 22d
February, 1870 till paid.
(Signed) A. c. HAYES"
"And we further certify that upon request
of the counsel for the pisintitf, we gave him
permission to alter form, moi touching sub
stance that he wat 10 The bar for he pur.
pose ci making HE alteration " hch he read
10 Us TO the following effect: we If the
Jury fnd the issues Tor the plaintiff and as
sess his damages TO the sum of nineteen
dollars and seventy-uine cents. " We fJr.
Their certify that the last verdict on this pa-
per and certificate is what we intended.
AMI what we believed we had done"
"(Sigued) Geo. Bowel, Spencer Bird,
Geo. F. Huber Wm. Merchant, Josprh r.
Gilbert. Thompson Simpson, Fousbee
TebLs. John Carter, JAS. ". Mcdaniel,
VIM. Cooke, Benz. Plnnmer, A. c.
Hayes. June 9th, 1878"
Town that this paper was not betre the
Judge of the superior court in the shape of
evidence-and ought not to be received as
evidence in court of law. But is noting
true that cannot be proved in a court Of
Justice Five or 6 % the Jurors were OK.
amined, and, il mistake not. their ev.
dence was not materially vari9 from the
certificate they made Immediately after
the transaction. The whole OF the Jury
would have been examined, il they could
have been got Ia The court, II seer sto me
that the court did do wrong in r. jrcting the
last verdict anil entering up that whi"h had
been obliterated, after rhe Jury had retired
or been discharged Because. if A. the
Judge believes. the count did not know that
an alteration had been ma e in the vcr'ict
with TIE consent and appreciation Of the
Jury. lin which belicf| cannot concur with
him notwithstanding his reasoning) they
ought to have awarded new Jury, for they
never could have doubted whatever else
ton of the verdict they first heard was
made with the express ascent OF the Jury.
II then, they could not !nl believe thai the
jury had ohliter,ied what the, hac beard
read as their verdict for il is immaleIaI,l
suppose, whether they did il themselves or
ordered it to he zone by aBoier) h W could
they innocen,Iy record thal az the verdict
of the Jury which they new had been des.
troyed and erased !y il.
It seemed to me t'.,n, if they were not
willing to take ih ver,,'ct o. The jury al
tered that the, ,uan { ted IN Imrrtprr u.s.
position, in not aflording the parties Lew
opportunity of knowing certainly what a
Jury would do in their case. ! he statement
of the evidence have here given Goes not
materially differ from the analysis maze Oh
il by his honor, the Judge though confess
did, and still see the testimony with very
different eyes. His honor, however, says,
SIT is certain that as speedily rs The COZ &C.
ton could be made The aIr.'s.eG verdict
was read hy he eoun.e! t. ti.e jury and
assonled to by them. aud that tins vr'oIct
was substantially II not ~ terms. u same
with that written by lie piaIniIii'> Coun'
sell" His honor further So $. = that Inc a
mended verdict was mol Ieai to the JCIyby
the clerk as is usual ana proper ~ al such
cases." And seems through the h"ie oI
tie paragraph in witch tie q % a IoI' IS
contained, to maintain the G'li,n 'r"t ne
court are lot TO act u on 'r I" kn"" Mhd'
the Jury have sad IL rgsit 10 lhtr
verdict. except what they receive through
their organ, the clerk Ii is ~ h'S thai
have tie unhappint.s to differ with h'
honor-and my believing that il was Who'll
ly immateIial whether the clerk reaG the
verdict 10 the court or nO'--and tnal tbey
were bound, to record what the jury hal
delivered were my principal reasons OL
commencing an enquiry into the legally"
their oOnGuct.
His honor says, it ought TO be presumed
although the jury box is mediate y W.
der The bench, and the bar very near 'ba!
the court din not hear he last or amehdeu
verdict rea,l-.'tha, even il they did hearing
amended verdict read by the ounsel to 'Gs
Jury, they were not bound 10 have regaIu'
ed it, or to have been guided IN tier Ge'
cison by what was not addressed to tEep'
but merely overheard pending the GI,'us
sion and consideration OF point r. gnia'y
made to them This idea, ! cannot t6Ink
either compolts with law or reason. 1t Is
the duty of every tribunal administering
any portion Of justice, not 10 suppress uu,n
by an adherence to mere form, but 10 "
right, when it is certainly known, IN oe''
pite of forms Forms a.e followed only De.
cause in the generality OF instances ny h%
departing from them, right more surely d.
pears. d;cy
But how does it appear that the resal 4S
of the verdict was mol Intended tor, al ~.
mol meet the ear OF the court "bale'elI
said aloud by member OF the bar Is a.,
WAYS intended for the court or Jury-aD..
In. court are TO see that nothing lmpr99Pgj
is said to the jury. Can it be believed, ~, .