Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1869-04-01
Shrewsbury Murder Case.
JURY FAIL TO AGREE.
Abssyacs Of Judge sfeele's Address
to the Jury.
JURY SENT OUT AGAIN FOR
FURTHER CONSULTATION.


HoN. DANIEL CRoFooT, Assistant
Hon. JOHN CROWLEY, ! Judges.
Monday, March 90, 1Se9.-The court
convened at two o'clock in the afternoon.
The jury in the case of the State vs. Ziba
Plumley ct al, came in, and upon being
Intercepted stated through their fore
man TINT they were unable to agree upon
verdict. Upon inquiry by the court,
the foreman said that their disagreement
was not upon any particular question of
law
JUDGE sTEELE's ADDRESS TO JURY.
The court then remarked that the court
could not for an instant contemplate the
consequences of disagreement of the
jury that at the close Of the trial of the
case the jury, well as the court and all
parties connected with the case, were
fatigued and worn out in body and mind,
and it could not be expected that the jury
could come to satisfactory conclusion in
so short a time as the jury had been con-
sidering this case. 1t is a case of great
Importance and involves many comph-
Gated circumstances, but the difficulty to
be encountered by you are the same that
any other twelve men would have
to meet; and again if you should
be discharged it would be next
to impossible to obtain another jury
in this county or State, and we trust you
will consider it no oppression on the part
Of the Court, if We require you to spend
very great time in considering the case
before giving it up, that the public inte-
rests requires that the work already done
should not be lost, that every effort must
be exhausted to reach conclusion, and
the jury can not be expected in the short
time you have had the case to have ar.
rive at a conclusion. The Court would
caution you against indulging in any
pride OF opinion; many men consider
it manly and proper to adhere to an i'm
preston when they get one upon their
mind; this is, however, very pernicious
and idle, in the attempts to come to
conclusion or harmonic the diseordant
views of men. Jurors must be as ready
to be convinced and surrender their own
views as to convince others and change
their views. The Judges of the Supreme
Court very seldom have the same impress
sion at first of a complicated case, and in
those intricate cases, result can never be
reached except by overcoming all DISPOSE
ton to carry out opinion, but by impair
tial and careful investigation, you must
seek to arrive at but one point and
that the truth; earnestly seek for
the truth, and you can scarcely fail
to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
The court here told the jury that one
great cause of disagreement among Jurors
is the irregularity of discussion they in
dulge in, two or three talking at a time,
and continuing dissultory discussion,
until the mind hnnnnaa rn-rI~-~l, 81
and worn out You will find you make
better progress by not working all the
time you should rest, what is necessary
for you TO. in order to work and think
carefully and understandingly, and when
you are seeking 10 arrive at verdict, you
will facilitate your labors by quietness,
deliberation, without heat or fervor !;
quietly and patiently investigate the
facts of the case, piece by piece. without
indulging in any pride of opinion and
when you are discussing the case, let all
be heard, but only one talk at time, and
you will ultimately arrive at a result sat
isfaetory to yourselves and the court but
yon must ali the time exclude from your
minds the idea of failure, going to work
quietly and patiently until you arrive at
a satisfactory result. one you Will be sat
lsfied with, These remarks are not in
tended az any reflection on the jury or any
one OF the jurors; the court has oidea but
what you have earnestly meant to work
TO arrive at a conclusion, and we have
only made these general remarks that
You might not despair 50 soon in your de-
alterations We shall send you back to
your deliberations, hoping that you will
quietly and patiently continue your la.
bors, and unless desiring the opinion Of
the court on some point of law, will not
verdict
The foreman Of the jury intimated
that il was proper for them to ask for s
more full explanation of the difference
between murder and manslaughter. they
would like more instruction on that point
In reply to which the court said; 1--WE
are not inclined to 30 into discussion o
the abstract questions of these crimes, fol
if we say little on that subject, it put
US in a position to say more ; and des
sertation of that kind would tend NOR,
to distract the mind than to make you
duties palmer In order to simplify tn
matter and bring the law of the case a
plainly before you as possible, we tolc
YOU on Saturday that in order to convic
Horace of murder, the Government
must make out, by full proof, four defnit
and that if you found those four propc
sitions all true, the law required you I
find him guilty of murder, but if tn
Government failed on either Of thos
propositions it was only manslaaghter,
you found it was any crime Mt all.
If the homicide was committed in sell
defense, it is no crime if not in self-d'
Tense, it must be murder or manslaughte
If the four things we stated are found tru
IT is murder; if either of them are nj
found, it is manslaughteY
The foreman inquired if it would
proper to consider the cases Of Ziba an
Frederick before they had agreed upon
verdict in case of Horace. To which IL
court replied: There is no law requirin
you to begin at either end of the case, b,
va don't ACE how Won can settle an,