The New York herald., 1872-12-01
) THE JUMEL ESTATE.

The Case OF George Washington Bowen
Against Nelson Chase-The Empanel-
hing ofn Special Jury tn Try the Cause
Review OF Precedents for 1.-THE
Duty OF Citizens Jurors.
Very many statements concerning the lOng-liti-
gated Jumel will case and Its congener ntigati0ns
have appeared from time TO time in the public
press, almost all OF which have distorted the real
facts OF the case as they properly belong to the
present litigation between the abovenamed
plantiff and defendant The most appropriate
manner OF refuting those which relate to the
merits of the pending controversy is by the
evidence OF witnesses on the trial. The Opportu-
nifty for this refutaton is at hand But it may be
proper now to state certain facts which have a
general interest and which, as they do not affect
the merits, cannot be subjects OF inquiry on the
trial.
The defendant. Mr. Chase, moved for special
jury, and the Court, after hearing an aidavit and
an argument OF counsel for the plaintiff in Opp0s
tiOn, granted the motion. The press mas
been misled in stating that the special
jury thus ordered is understood to be "the first
ever empaneed in this country.n II would be
strange indeed II this so. The utility OF spe-
cal or struck jures is apparent to all who under
stand the principle on which they are allowed, and
on a fair statement Of that principle will be
ccded by every unprejudced person. There is no
lack OF precedents. For instance
In the early English practice it was the usage TO
order all cases OF importance to be tried bar be-
fore the whole Court special jury was an nva-
riable incident of such trial at bar. When impor-
tant cases became too numerous to be tried at
bar it was doubted whether a special
jury could be ordered at the single-judge Court
commonly called ,atsi prists the assizes. Stat
utes were therefore passed TO remove this doubt
and to place the special jury system on perma-
nent basis. With slight variations of no moment
except III reference to expenses. 1t remains upon
that footing in England until the present day. On
consentng to defray the extra expense either
party can have a special jury as matter of strict
right, The New York statutes, from the earliest
special Juries. They may be found in the last re-
vision, 8 II. s., 716, fifth edition.
The only substantial difference between the New
York and English statutory systems is that in
our Courts party cannot insist upon special
jnry he must pray for IT. ana the the Court may grant
stances. The State law in this respect governs in
the United States Courts.
The special jury Ia formed In the following man.
ner:-An officer OF the Court selects forty-eight
persons whom he deems .mOst Indifferent between
the parties and best qualified to try the case.n
The parties alternately strike out one until each
has stricken out twelve, and the jurors to try the
case are drawn by ballot from the remaining
twenty-fOur.
The advantages are apparent. Fitness and ca
pacity are attained In respect to the whole forty
IT,.
person upon the jury Is almost certainly prevented
by the absolute right OF each party to reject per-
emptorily one-fourth of the whole panel. All the
defects OF common juries which any human care
or provision could correct have been obviated by
this system. 1t was established in the very infancy
OF Jurisprudence, and has been approved in every
age down to the present Special jurles are not
often asked for in this country; but they are well
known to the profession.
Many trials have been had in our City Hall before
special juries. The noted Staten Island case OF
Windle, Executor. vs.. st. Andrews Church. in
volvlng pecuniarily only $3.50 and interest, was
tried nine times Intellectually before common uries
but tenth trial, by q special jury, before Chief
Justice Ruggles. terminated the veXation. The
quo rdY7untO against Azariah &. Flagg, brought to
test his election to the New York Comptrollershp,
was tried by a special jury before Judge Emott.
Samuel J. Tiden presented in his opening speech
for Mr.. Flagg set Of figures which were fatal to
the prosecution Through the enlightened Judgment
OF q special jury he utterly demolished an
ingeniOusly prepared case. Other precedcnts
might be adduced, but let these suffice. The
gentlemen who may be summoned as special
jury might be induced from reading late article
IN one Of the daily papers to shun the task, as
likely to occupy too much Of their valuable time
The only i'll effect OF this would be to embarrass
with delays any party in the case who seeks a
prompt and o fair trial. 1t Is, however, by no
means certain tnat the case will occupy as much
time as predicted, and it Is certainly the duty Of
every good anu honorable citizen who has a stake
in the pure administration OF justice to endure If
neediul. some personal inconvenience for the pur-
pose OF preserving IL.
JAMES c. CARTER, 90 Wall street.
NOVEMBER 29 1872.