New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-05-15
FROM BOSTON.
from Our Own Correspondent.

Boston, May H. 1858.
We are now engaged in the attempt to discover
whether the Jury 10 the Shaw case and
the Shaw in the Salem nuisance case decided
rightly. Weexpect to get up parties on both these
questions before Fau. Will you bear with me
while make a remark or two on the present aspect
Of both these questions You will, perh,ps re
member that the great lawsuit Of Mrs. Shaw
against the Boston and Worcester Railros1 has
been tried three several times SIEGE January, 1882,
when the accident occurred by which Mr.. Shaw lost
his life and Mrs. Shaw both her arns. The Railroad
offered to pay $1,000 but this offer declined.
The first Jury awarded Mrs. Shaw 1000; the
second added to that sum interest for three or four
wears, and brought il up to sic, OO0 Both these
verdicts were set aside, aud a new trial ordered,
ard this has Just terminated in disagreement of
the jury. Common report says that only one Of the
Jurors stood out and he could not be convinced that
the plaintiff and her husband were using due and
customary caution, when they approached the cross
ing. After three long trials, before crowded AL.
diences of course, some degree of partisaEshp is
generated. Tie Transcript gave vOlce TO the
ind gnaiion Of one side by intlmatng that
the dissenting Juror was brlbed or unduy
influenced he being dealer in railroad iron.
The innuendO was, that dealer in railroad iron
could not try question fairly between wOm-
an and a railroad company. The Transcript fol-
lowed up It's lnluendO by contrasting this iron man
with the foreman of the Jury which gave $4,000,
who II said, was large stakeholder in the defend
ant road Iii this there was II serious mistake of
fact, Mr.. Peter Il. Brig ham, the person alluded to,
being Director in the Fi.chburg Railroad and not
a stakeholder in the Worcester. The Transcript,
however, has apOlogized handsomely for its errors
of logic and fact. Next, The Adcertiser took ny
H. -: l.
Gently remarkDg that "any public expression of
partnanship in favor OF either side cannot fail
:" 10 disturb the equal and impartial course Of just
Ice, It proceeds to give partisan statement of the
case on the side OF the railroad, including some
hearsay evidence which Judge Bigelow expressly
excluded from the minds of the jury. If the DIS
cussion gees ON, it will be impossible six months
hence, to fnd all impartial jury TO try the case for
the fourth time.
MIR. ChOste made one Of his greatest speeches in
behalf OF the plaintiff much superior 10 auy argd-
ment have heard him make for several years. |
did not hear Mr.. Hoar, who spoke for the railroad.
Judge BlgelOws charge was abe and fair. leaning
II at all, in favor of the plaintiff. IL was not en-
cunbered by more than the usual n1mber of tru.
isms. Some charges which are delivered to luries
IN ths neighborhood are positively insulting to them,
as RIDICULOUS III their way the stories the Western
numVrsts tel us OF the Judges in the backwoods
The very Il Of common sense is laid down by
the Lali hour together To who are selected be.
cause IN matters OF common they are supposed
10 be experts. thought at first that Judge Bpe.
low Was presuInlng little when he told toe Jnrv
that positive testimony was much more yalnsbls
than negative testimony, and that if man should
come INTO the courtroom, and say eeaw a certain
man there, and another should come in and saw he
did not see hun, the evidence that he ras there
would be stronger than the evidence that he was
not But 1t occurred to me that perhaps Judge
Kiral.w might hp Intending IN rorra.t Ia.
who, in arguing tie question of the eIiJi in his
charge against Professor Webster, used this Ian
tuage
ad ha. positive t-sr1ory 10 available than u.,a
i've hEifequeuiy happens, 10 proof Of tns s,t
ilIf, winch L.! p.. ~
persons paced position % observe a.d cs
sBys Lc I'd md The oher .ht te did, ~
Why sdi ciftr. FcI III. A. o1
Ss.1, D. .Lof st,t u, I ID ...:ihe