The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-03-16

therefore be assumed that the declaration
Of the bailitt that the jury should have no
more food or water unless they decided
the case one way or the other. II under
stood to be made without authority from
the Court. could have had the least intiu-
ence upon their deliberations. And it
will not be contended that if the bailiti
acted by authority there is Just ground I
for suspecting the purity of the verdict.
But admitting, for the purpose of argu-
ment. that the Jury IN fact believed that
il depended solely on the will of the BAT
liti. whether they were furnished refresh
ments or not. it is not readily perceived I.
in what way the communication of the
bailtt could have influenced the verdict 4
either for or against the accused. II mi gbt I
furnish a motive which might accelerate .
a concurrence OF the jury. And going .
farther, and admitting that the motive |
thus presented might be sufficiently po- /
tent TO overcome their convictions of the !
guilt or innocence of the accused. il j. 7
nevertheless manifest that its tendency
would not be greater To produce q concur .
renee as To his guilt than as to his inno-
cencc. Indeed it may be safely assumed
that If such a motive j. allowed to have
place in the breast of juror. il would OF
crate generally in favor of the accused
particularly in prosecutions where the
death penalty l. attached to a conviction.
/ For we can scarcely imagine % human
being 50 deprayed. who, placed in the al
/ formative, would not consent to the c-cap,.
Of a felon more readily than he would
/ agree to become the judicial murderer or
( one whom he believed to be innocent.
( Ancientlv. at common law. after the iu-
4 4 l.,l L.
/ consider of the verdict, they were kept
/ together without communication with
/ others, and without rcireshment of any
4 kind. These rule, are still with more on
lers vigor enforced in several of the State,
! of this Contederacy. I'm this State. they
/ have been greatly relaxed, particularly IN
regard to the supplying Of iurics with
/ proper refreshments after they have been
/ charged, and placed III the keeping OF an
/ officer We do not question the policy
! of the notifications which have been in
! troduced. But it Is certain that they
/ have not proceeded from a conviction ia
/ the minds of our Legislatures, that in
! prosecutions for felonies. the rule at com
mon law. which excluded the jury dU-
ring the hours of deliberation from all
refreshments, tended to produce impro-
! per convictions. And in view of all tho
rules which have been adopted for the
| purpose of insurng impartlalitv in the
| vcrdictS Of iuries, the suggestion Is a
novel one. that the purity of a verdict is
| to be suspected if the jury deliberate an
1 der the impression that they are not to be
| furnished with refreshments. Upon the
| whole. we are well satisfied, that this
ground for the motion was mtcnablc. 1t
/ appears further. that at the suggestion of
one of the Jurors. who was a physician
the bailiif carried Liquor" in bottle into
! the Jury room for another one Of the iu-
rors who was''sick. This was done without
the knowledge or permission of the Court :
the juror who was sick. drank of the
liquor. The bailitf did not see any other
person drink, but did not know that no
one else drank The bottle OF LIQUOR was
in the room very short time, during
which the bailitf was present, who carried
the bottle ont with him.
Drinking in any shape is not to be toler-
ated in a jury during the progress Of the
trial The conduct and acts of the juror.
as well as those of the bailiff were there
fore highly reprehensible. But the true
point of inquiry here Is. not whether these
parties were guilty Of improper and lie
gal conduct. but whether. by such con-
duct, the verdict was improperly infuen-
ccd. n, indeed, the evidence closed with
the proof. of the naked fact. that ardent
spirits in quantities sufficient to produce
intOXication. were conveyed 10y the officer
into the jury room, we should feel no hes
itation in holding that the conviction
should be set aside; upon such proof there
would he ground for suspecting the purity
of the verdict. And where facts are e.
] t,l.l1-h,l ,,-l, Il Il
fiuences might have been brought to bear
upon the jury. and there is no opposing
testimony which negatives the preslmp-
ton thus created, according to the settled
rule Of this Court. the verdict will bc
deemed vicious. Harris Can. How
l92 McCann's case. $. 4 NJ. 400: Organ,
case, 26 Miss. Rep. IS; Ned /, Taylor
case "a NJ.
The rule applicable in all cases of thi,
character, and which has been uniformly
recognized in this Court. is laid down in
McCann's ease above quoted rs follows
The evil to be guarded against Is impro
per influence, and where an exposure t.
such influence is shown. and it is not
shown that it failed of effect, then tn,
presumption is against the purity of tn,
verdict The evidence in regard to thi,
point, we think, clearly shows that no ei.
feet which could in any way influence the
verdict, resulted from the introduction
Of the bottle Of liquor into the jury
room. The officer does not in express
terms state that no juror except the sick
man drank Of the brandy but a. he re-
manned in the room during the whole
time the bottle was there. which was a
very short time, and did not see any 9th
cr juror drink such is the effect of his
testimony. Under these circumstances.
Notwithstanding the irregular and impro-
per conduct of the hailitf and the Juror.
there Is no pretence for asserting that the
verdict should be disturbed.
There Is another point made upon the
introduction of the jurors as witnesses on
the trial Of the motion torau trial. Ii is
not To be questioned that their testimony
was incompetent. Organ Us. State. %
Miss. Rep. S3. But as the presiding Judge
did not see proper to prevent their exam
nation, and rs no exception was taken To
the introduction of their testimony. we
cannot consider the objection.
JUDGMENT affirmed. SNITU.