Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1861-03-21

7
ST. JOHN Is. l.. SKINNER,
First Assistant Post Master General.
TIoN. ERAsTrs FAirBANKs,
A LEGAL ANOMALY.

In the present state of the law this curious
anomaly exists, that in the very same state of
facts, il depends upon whether the proceeding
is civil or criminal, whether the mouth of the
accused person is closed or not \ and his
wife walking home at night, are met by b and
his wife, when b knocks a down. A indicts
b for the assault, and this being a criminal
proceeding, A and his wife give their evidence
upon oath, whilst neither B nor his wife can be
examined at all. But suppose that, instead of
indicting B, \ had brought an action against
him, the whole case is changed Now A and
b, and their respective wives, can all be exam
ined and cross examined. Can there be q
doubt which case is most conducive to the
cluCidatOn Of the truth, and can gro>ser alb
surdity he conceived than that the same court
should adopt modes OF procedure so nconss,-
ent in an inquiry into the same facts, before
the same Judge and jury and practically be-
tween the same parties?
a case occurred last summer which excited
great interest, and which forcibly illustrates
the evil we complain of.
A clergyman by the name of Hatch was in
dicted for gross offence alleged to have Lecn
committed upon a child of tender years, who
had been intrusted to his care as pupil. The
charge rested almost solely on the evidence of
the child, girl of the name of Eugenia Plum
mer. Neither Hatch nor is wife could be ex-
anime !, and as theirs was the only testimony
by which, from the nature of the case, the
charge could he rebutted, Hatch was co ycted
Under the circumstances, it was hardly possible
that the Jury could come to any other conclu-
sion. a few weeks elapsed aud Eugenia Plum
mer was placed at the same bar, charged with
perjury. Then the tables were turned Hatch
aud his wife were examined the child's mouth
was closed. The Jury convicted Eugenia
Plummer OF perjury. On the evidence before
the Jury no other result could reasonably he
expected Both the Jurics discharged their
duties with honesty and intelligence. Both
were assisted in their deliberations BY Judges
of the highest character and the greatest expe-
rience and ability, YET one Jury or the other
convicted an innocent person. If Plummer
was guilty, Hatch was innocent if Hatch was
guilty, Plummer was herself the double victim
Of brutality and his perjury. We express no
opinion whatever as to which jury was right
but it is manifest that could not he. 1t must,
we think, be clear to every one that the only
way in which a case of this kind could be sat
isfactorily tried must he by confronting and ex-
amining both the parlias. To attempt to try
such issues separately is like trying To cut a
knot with the two disjointed halves of pair of
scissors.
If, upon one trial, both could have been ex-
amined, the inquiry would very possibly have
terminated in the acquital of both. In other
words, the Jury might have found the evidence
of both so unsatisfactory 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 Plummer for perjury has operated
as virtual acquital of Hatch. But every one
must feel that that acquital having been OBJ
tanned when the mouth of the only material
witness agains, him was closed, is far less sat
isfactory than it would have been if it had re-
suited from the decision Of Jury who had
heard the evidence of Pummer.-Blschuoods
Wdgdzine