Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1861-03-29
A Legal Anomaly.


A Legal Anomaly.
In the present state Of law this curl
Gus anomaly exists, that in the very same
state Of facts, it depends upon whether
the proceeding is civil or criminal, wheth-
er the mouth of the accused person is
closed or not. A and his wife walking
home at night, are met by 3 and his wife,
when B knocks A down. A indicts B
for assault, and this being criminal pro-
ceeding, A and his wife give their evil
dence upon oath, whilst neither B nor
his wife can be examined at all But
suppose that instead Of indicting 3, a
had brought an action against BIN, the
whole case is changed Now \ and Il
and their respective wives can all be eX-
amined and cross examined. Can there
be doubt which case is most conducive
to the elucidation of truth, aud can a
grosser absuriity be conceived than that
the same court should adopt modes Of
procedure so Inconsistent in an inquiry
into the same facts, before the same judge
and jury, and practically between the
same parties
\ case occurred las. summer which
excited great interest and forcibly illus
trates the evil we complain Of.
A clergyman by the narle Of Hatch
was indicted for a gross oEeuse alleged
to have been committed upon child Of
tender years who had been entrusted to
bis care as pupil. TIE charge rested
almost solely on the evidence of the child
girl by the name Of Eugsnia Plummer
Neither Hatch nor his wife could lie ex-
amined, and, as theirs was the only tes-
tImony by which, from the nature Of the
case, the charge could BE- rebu,ted, Hatch
was convicted. Under the circumstances,
it was hardly possible that the jury could
come to any other conclusion. A few
weeks elapsed, and Eugenia Plummer
was placed at the same bag charged with
perjury. Then the tables were turned
Hatch and his wife were examined; the
childs mouth was closed. The jury con-
victed Eugenia Plummer of perjury.
On the evidence before the Jury no 9th
er result could reasonably be expected.
Both juries discharged their duties with
honesty and intelligence. Both were as
sisted in their deliberations by judges OF
the highest character and greatest expe-
rience and ability, yet one jury or the
other convicted an innocent person. If
PIummer was guilty Hatch was innocent,
if Hatch was guilty Plummer was her
SUI 'uo uOuDlO flCuh VI UIutallAy duu
his perjury. We express no opinion
whatever as to which jury was right, but
it is manifest that both could not be. 1t
must, we think, be clear to every one that
he,only way in which a case of this kind
could be satisfactorily tried must be by
confronting and examining both parties.
To attempt try such issues separately is
like trying TO cut knot with the two
di$jointed halves of pair of scissors.
If, upon trial, both could have been
examined, the inquiry would very posi-
bly, have terminated in the acquittal Of
both. In other words, the jury might
have found the evidence of both SO unsat-
isfactory that they could not found any
decision upon it. Such result certainly
would not have been desirable, yet it
would have been far less Objectionable !
than what has actually taken place. The
conviction of Eugenia hummer for per- 4
jury has operated as the virtual acquital .
Of Hatch. But every one must feel that
that acquital having been obtained when
the mouth of the only materis! witness
against him was closed, is lar less salts
factory tLan it would have been if it had
resulted from the decision of a jury who
had heard the evidence of Plummer.-
Black'oOod's NagGrine.
CT Fort Sumter not vet surrendered