The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-04-06

room, which communicates with mine. turned
HIM, as though he was waiting Ing for something; meth he
Rcbatd t. shhurst sworn says;-I am counsel
owner Of property No. 27 after the awerd was made
MIR. Rohan and Boyd but am UNCERTAIN as g Their
asked me Il had heard the award; 1 said it was
not yet announced; they said they @ could ocI teil
tor told me what It was. They asked me 4 was
sbond accept % One Of these Jurors then said they
had had long years work over u and had received
the property owners should give them something. %
ston TO ignorance rather than corruption, at the
time but few days afterwards i u thinS: ihs ae yne
proposition declined Of course and sn ment9Redd aSRsd
me, il something could be done towards advancing
their compensation or cashipg SheT Warrsb ahon H.
mentioned i to Mr. Sellers and he , sold me SnS ana
think never cOnversed with these two jurors
Peter Kern says:-I claimant for damages
DgfS c1nversation with them. / did mot know them
before they sat on the jury Snnt Sa mus and FouruS
street near the corner. on the street He asked me
put the question to me that way. l & told a. hin
Should @ give him right OFF, think he asked that
amount told him no, right oh, woqIdnt give I'VE MN nm
any body had sent him to he did speak Of the
o mOe than vs weTS @Sues Eess TSs was hn
before the last meeting OF the jury DO mot know
walked down ChesHpt % street. Well an and nd ,TI.S met
man one Of the Jurors; and then went into MiIlers
tavern between Third 6r ana HouTsh ap hnS one
OF the jurors, don't know his name in there. and
sns down. TSSn this aryman said the report
thisyoung man ii wouldnI / give them metningthat
they had worked hard ali summer, and had got
was to give 70 them. Well, they said they wSnId
fy they should they didn't come and have not seen
them since At the Time Of the conversation a. MIL
they did not tell then but heard i Afterwards
them Snyt6ing. The, tFestnE was once q,
MILES, Mers Two of the Jurors were toget6eE once
guess that fun; he laughed about it. and IL was
after the awarS 90 mot knSw 5s ns name seems on 'He R
me somewhere here on Walnut street. 3etween Fnh
sad wss bs He Laughed and laughed and said
don't make -four. or might give him barrel
Joseph B. Hancock was examined as to state.
ments sworn to by Boyd and Rohan when testi-
| Tying before acommittee of the Select and Com
mon Council of the city, which seriously impli-
| cate Mr.. Erwin as consenting to the payment of
| money to the jurors, at their request; but as
Mr.. Erwin does not appear to have been present
to crossexamine these witnesses, or put IN a
| defense, / omit Mr.. Hancocks statements,
which, If true, bear heavily against him.
Is comment at all nee essary on this testimony,
which stands before us unimpeached by any
other portion of the evidence, and not questioned
or denied by the Jurors implicated by it? Nor
do we deem it necessary to do more than to add,
that upon these facts as they are in proof before
u.s. we rest our decision to set aside this report,
that the question OF damages may be referred to
other and better hands.
1t is but Just o two of the jurors, Mr.. James
N. Marks and David Johnson, to say for them,
, they appear to have had no part or lot in the
} corrupt practices of their associates, and
that it is misfortune that they should have
been associated with their fellows, all of whom
were drawn from the wheel, under the old sys-
tenn, now, we think, happily abolished.
There is one other matter to which we think
ii but right to refer in conclusion and that is
the practice so long in use of giving entertain
ments to road jurors. Some months since we
expressed our reprehension of the custom,
which has nothing but its antiquity to sustain
IT and which W. we think has not even Di1o ia, the
phia. The custom no doubt grew up
under very different state of affairs from those
which exist in this day. When the population
of Pennsylvania was sparse, when counties we're
treble the extent they now are when houses of
entertainment in many portions of the State
were few and far between it may have been
right and proper to furnish refreshment to road
jurors, who were compelled to travel many
miles in the performance OF duties which the
law imposed on them. But that necessity has
long since passed away, and certainly IN the
city of Philadelphia no shadow of reason exists
for the continuation of this practice. On the
contrary, every reason urges its discontinuance.
II Is an event OF not unirequent occurrence,
that jurors are feasted at great expense,
Not only is food furnished them, but ex-
pensive wines and other liquors are given
TO JDem IN prOIuSlO0. Can BuCl q pracGlce be
explained on any other theory than that the
motive is an improper one; that the purpose to
be accomplished Is TO obtain large awards of
damages, which would not otherwise be given,
to claimants for compensation for property
taken Tor streets, or roads of the city. II is
nothing more nor less than bribe, in
tended to influence the action of the Jury,
and from which, we doubt not, the city is
sufferer at this day to the extent of hundreds of
thousands of dollars. We are aware that the
Supreme Court, many years since, said that
they could SEQ no improperly in furnishing
retresbment to road jurors, and this opinion has
been quoted against the order which we some
time since made to correct this evil; but we do
not think 1t is applicable to state of facts as
they exist with us. AT all events, we are
inclined to stand by our order, to set aside a
report in any case in which it appears
that jury has in this way been tampered
with, so long as the question stands open, as
we think il does, in its application to the city of
Philadelphia. The conduct of the jurors ia this
case, who solicited good suppers, and the
remark of one of them that those Jared best in
damages who treated the jury best, Is the
strongest evidence against longer liberation of
this custom. No verdict of jury would for
moment be sustained by any courtif it appeared
that the Jurors had been approached or tam
pered with In this way. Why should different
rule hold as to road jurors? 1t has the further
objection of putting the poor, or the rigidly
scrupulous man. who will not yield to this Gus.
tom, to great DISADVANTAGE before the jury.
In conclusion, we have only to say that we
think this is a case TO which we should publicly
call the attention of the District Attorney, as
as road jurors will wrongfully combine to pro-
cure, by improper means, or to extort money
from parties who are compelled to appear before
them to claim damages they have no right 70