The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-02-09
BALTIMORE.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY .. 1859.

In commenting the other day upon the absurdi-
~ and injustice of the present law with respect to
juries, we mentioned the fact that the subject was
also attracting attention at the present time in
England, where the same system prevails, and
similar Inconvenience have been experienced. In
a recent case in the Queens Bench where a rail-
way company was sued by passenger, for iniu-
ries sustained, as he alleged, through the want of
proper care and diligence on the part of the COM
panys servants, the Jury, after an absence of two
hours, returned with verdict in favor of the plain
tiff, but awarded him only one farthing damages.
This verdict Lord CAMPBELL, before whom the case
was tried refused to receive, upon the ground that
the evidence showed that the plaintiff had in re-
atty sustained very severe injury, and that if he
was entitled to damages at all, those damages
should be adequate. The Jury were accord
ingly remanded to their room, and after re-
naming in confinement all night, and fail
ing to agree upon any other verdict, were
finally discharged. Here we have practical
illustration Of the inconsistency of existing regu-
lations In the first place, there is the utter and
uncomfortable absurdity of requiring unanmty on
the part of uries, without either the means or the
intention of enforcing it. We select twelve men
TO try cause, and refuse to abide by any other
than their unanimous decision. If they agree
whv-well and good-they have performed the
duty for which they were delegated, and are dis
charged accordingly. If they do not agree-why
then they are discharged also. What is the diff
ference? Only this--that in the one case-there
must be another trial and another jury-more time
consumed III more costs incurred - additional
II 10Th,
expense to suitors. The jury, perhaps, have es-
capped the responsibility of deciding difficult and
troublesome cause but beyond that--no earthly
advantage can be said to have accrued to any in
dividua from that absurd provision of the law
which renders it obligatory upon juries to return
unanimous verdict. That the existence of such
provision is not calculated to promote justice is
shown by the character of the verdict, in which
the jury, in the case above cited, were willing to
unite, but which the Judge refused to receive. 1t
was, as Lord CAMPBELL justly observed-'c contrary
ito law, to justice, and to common sense" And
this, probably, the Jury knew quite as we'll as did
his Lordship. But then, the case which they were
called upon to decide was an intricateand puzzlng
one. The question was-whether there had been
negligence the part of the servants of rail-
way company, and in its consideration were in
volved some of the incest points-as, for example
whether a flood was Sudden, unforeseen, and
unexpected; whether the speed of train was
excessive; whether a station-master ought on
an lawful night''-when it Numbered, lightened
and raned heavily--to have put up the signal
''caution what is excessive speed generally,
and what speed ought to be considered Excessive
Thunderstorm iobf
Unable, apparently, to solve these knotty
points the jury took middle course such as
jurles, under similar circumstances, are in the
habit of taking every day. They found a verdict
for the plantif-thereby imputng negligence to
the company; but they assessed the plaintiff in
jury at only one farthing damages. In other
words, they were divided as to the main question
OF negligence, and accordingly found compro-
mise verdict-inconsisent with any theory of the
case, and rendering justice to nobody. As the
London Iimes-from whose columns we have
gathered our statement of the case-strongly puts
it-"because neither party were willing to violate
'their oaths, both agreed to prevent JUSTICE
And, as the same journal adds-''this is the con-
"stant result of the present necessity for unanim-
'Ity." The jury, wishing to save their couscien-
ces, and yet dreading hunger and Imprisonment,
agree 10 something which is not justice, nor even
an approximation to it. The evils resulting from
such system must be obvious to every one
Their effect has already been to weaken public
confidence in trial by jury, and unless remedied in
time they will eventually lead to its disuse alto
gether, and to the substitution of the simpler and
cheaner hnnaron oa-ta;, IF tho nn,t;tv
and admiralty courts. The only way in which
they can be obviated, is that already pointed out
by permitting the Judge after the jury shall have
been locked up u certain time and have failed to
agree, to take the verdict of certain proportion,
or Il majority Of their number-provided, he him
self concurs in it.