The Sumter banner. [volume] (Sumterville, S.C.) 1846-1855, 1855-04-04
Cha rgc 10 JlurEcs.

IS''|S, 40 hhPioPSI ahu dt variance
with our whole system, any nrgu.
ments pro or con, and any expression
of opinion as to the merits of the case.
ny the presiding Judges. we are salts.
fled they will be endorsed by the com.
munity at large. However it may
have been formerly, we know the fnct
that, in our day, Juriex ara greatly
influenced, almost governed by the
charge Of the presiding Judge. They
araif for his charge, in many instances
before they take the case into serious
consideration in their own minds re.
lying upon the Judge directing them
what to do and then give their verdict
because "his houor" charged them thus
and thus. We think this great evil,
and u growing tendency with Juries,
which cannot be too much guarded
against, and one which has been indu.
ced by the indiscretion, to say the
least, complained of.
But here are the remarks Of the
Times:
"An article in the New Orleans
l'cays"e, OF recent date, gives us
the first information we have seen,
that the Judges in the Courts Of Loui
sIana are prohibited, by provision of
law. from summing up the evidence
or making amy comments upon facts
in jury trials. The Judges are restric.
ted to the single province Of adducinp
and explaining the law, without being
permitted to even apply the law t"
the facts evolved in the trial of the
cause. The Picay"me regards this as
al unwise restriction, originating
in an intire misapprehension of
the whole jury system.
The very reverse of all this is the
practice Of the Judges in the Courts
of this whether in conformity
to law or in despite of law, we are nm
able ,o s"y. Here Judges arc pr;vi-
legged, at least assume the privilege,
not only 10 sum up the evidence, re.
cite and expound the law, and apply
it to the facts, but they frequently in.
dulgc adiiditum IN comments, both up
ON the law and the facts. Indeed not I'm.
frequently it would be difficult to dis
tinguish between The Judge and the
counsel of the parties litigant, il one
were introduced bIindfnId into the
Halls of Justice so warmly does the
Judge, i" some instances, though they
are rare, espouse AID advocate the
cause of tho party at law, whom his
or perhaps his prejudices,
incliI:es him to favor. This we think
MS great an evil-ns great an obslruc.
ton to an impartial administration of
JnstIce-;'s great u pervcrsion Of the
:'ial by jury, as would lie the rcstric.
ton which is imposed upon the
jud gcs iii the Courts of Louisiana. In
fact. trial by jury becomes mere
m"ckcry, where the Judge, who is
presumed to hold the seal $ ofJu ,ricc.
with eqmipoise, and to be unbiased in
his opinions, is allowed to sway the
Judgment of the jurors by sIecio..s
arguments, whose sophistry escapes
! xposmre, or by loose comments, his
mere ipse dirit upon the law and cvi
dencr, which almost wholly obli.er
ate the impressions made by the ar.
guments ct the counsel. Whenever IL
Jude, in his charge to the jury. indul.
yes III argument pro or con, he ceases
to he Judsc--an cxpounder OF the
law-and becomes in very truth an
advocate. The jury, who generally
have almost Implicit, inquest onin.
confidence in the legal learning, wis
dom and Judgment of the presiding
officer of the Court, are inclined to
take their cue from him, and decide
acco' ding to his cNpositions of the law
and testimony, and not according t.
their own unbiased judgements. L.,
such case, the trial by jury ceases Ia
be such, and the cause ut law is virtual!
ly decided by the Judge alone.
Son.c restriction upon our Jud res
in their charges to jnrics would, there.
fore, seem to be necessary, five wnuI
preserve the trial by jury in its p,ri
ty if we would keep the sphere OF
their duties marked and distinct: if
we would prevent the eApunnder Of
the law from assuming and exercising
The prcrogatives OF advocate, Judge
and jury: So long rs the jury sh.Il
continue principle feature OF our iu.
dIc'al system, ITS peculiar sphere
shoul! be carefully guarded against
intrusion and assumption. To do this
it would seem necessary
to define clearly and restrict within
we'll defined limits the province ofour
Judges. Aud although we would not
impose too many restrictions upon
them, Jetwe would not allow them
quite as much latitude as they now
have. We would have them sum up
the evidence and present il in n clear.
connected and tangible form to the
minds of The jury we would have
them ecise ami expound the law, and