, 1873-10-29

ASAAA LII NuA1 AN0 1GAiGU FEHulQIHs
Tile aotion Of tho Jury i'll the recent trial oil
Puffc"borger furnishes an appropriate occasion
to inquire whothof there IL not need Of solnc
logtalation to prcvcnt tho repetition of s,icl Il
scandalo.s proceeding. Tllc circumstances oi
tho trial mud aoqutta1 of puronborgor arc vol
understood Tho Chicago L Alton Railroad
Company virtually undertook to prosecute thu
engineer, aud make him boar tho guilt Of IN ao-
cidont for which tho Company itaolf was, in the
estimation Of tho Jury. responsible. Tho thing
waH ovordono. Before tho trial had progressed
long, overy ono aaw that was fight botwoon
the Railroad Company md Pulfonbergor; aa
the Interference Of tho Company was further
developed, 1t became IN ovon thing whctller the
jury ought to convict Puffenbergor or tho Rail-
road Company and it aotuaily resulted in tho
unanimous agroomont Of tho jury TINT pufron-
borgor was not guilty and that tho Company
was. After tho retirement OF tho Jury, tho
Court-not willing to remain, perhaps, half tho
night to teceivo tho verdtot-ad djourned, giving
tho Jury permission, II they agrood to aoal up
thcfr verdict to be road and recorded at tho
opening Of the court In tho morning. Tho jury
agreed on their verdict ovor night. Iu tho
morning, at the opening Of tho court tho verdict
WAS opened and announced. It road As follows :;
PETIT JunY 1sooM, CHICAGO Oct. a, 1B73-Wo, tho
jury, And tho prisoner not guilty, charged In tho
fldictmont, and severely consuro tho Chicago b Alton
Railroad Company for employing incompetent mon in
connection with tho business Of tho road {sgned),
| John Wright, foreman; H. A. Forsyth, Thomas r,
1nf4a+ ali n.f. =
JoBoph Pearson, Charles ]. Waiter, Robert Wa1den,
George Y. Ridley.
The reading was received With applause by the
multitude present, and the Court, with groat
promptncss, had eome Of the applauding by
s.anderB arrested for tho indecorum. After the
very proper zeal Of tho Court had been expended,
tho consideration Of the verdict itself was re-
aumcd. Tho States Attorney demanded that
tho jury DO po11ed, and forthwith tho Clerk called
the roll, and It Was found that ono Of tho jury
Ind, in tho interval between signing tho verdict
and coming into court, changed hia opinion.
This circumstance would hayo boen sufficient to
attract attention. but tho sequel gayo to 1t now
aignidcsnco. Tho jury again retired, and aoon
after returned with verdict Of not guilty as to
PuHenbeiger, and omitt1ng ali reterel CO to the
Railroad Company. Tho dissenting juror had
become batter informed as to tho responsibility
Of the Railroad Company for tho slaughter aftor
mlng1ing with the outer world.
A caHe occurred In tho Criminal Court horo q
few years ago, in which man was tried for tho
robbery OF 5000 of money. Tho money, or tho
creator part Of 1t, was found on tho accused.
The jury wore authorized by the Court, If they
agreed on a verdict, to seal 1t mud thon separate
This was done tho Jury agrood on verdict Of
guilty, which they signed and went home. In
the morning, as in tho puffenbergor caae, one of
tho Jurors repudiated tho verdict, and
thereafter refusing to agreo with tho other
Jurors thero was no conviction, md tho money
was still withhold from the lawful owner. In
this case it was impossible to resist the
Inference that after the jury separated at
night the Juror lad been "soon - TINT lie
communicated tho character Of tue vordict,
and allowed himself to bo convinced tllat tho
mnn ought not to 10 convicted. In that case, if
TIC remember correctly, tho Court severely repri-
manded the juror, and expressed its opinion TINT
such q man was unfit to sorye on any jury where
the life, liberty, or property Of any citizen was at
stake. We hayo not heard that tho Court in the
putrepborgor case has in any way censurcd tho
juror for his conduct. Tho only question which
tho jury had to try was tho guilt or Innocence Of
Puffenborgor. What waa thore, after he Ind
signed the verdict and left the jury-room, to iu-
duce him to go back no1t morning and insist
that all TINT part Of the vordiot relating to tho
Railroad Company should DO excluded Cortain-
ly, 1t waa not out Of consideration for putronbor
gor nor was it out Of consideration for tho pros
ecution. Who, then, was Interested in TINT part
Of the verdict, md whose feelings wore spared
by the awakened conscience Of the inror?
Wo call tho attention Of the Legislature to
this subject, and to tho necessity of making
some provision to prevent abuses Of the Jury
system. The praotioe Of sealed verdicts is
resorted to for the convenience Of tho Court and
Of the jury. Out OF this has grown the COM
paratlve1y modern practice Of permitting jurors
to separate after the case ia closed and before
the verdict ia ronlered. The Courts arc unwil-
ling to sit up all night to await tho verdict Of
jury, and therefore adjourn. Aa The jury may
agree, and otherwise must remain prisoners
until the meeting Of tho Court next day. the
Courts have granted thom permission, ii thoy
agree, to aigp and aeal their verdict, which ia
opened next day, tho Jurors in the mean-
timo separating. No practice is more
liable to abuse, whom any one Of tho
twelve Jurors may noxt morning ropudi-
ato the verdict. In tile twelve or fourteen
hourB that may Intervene between the separation
over night and tho meeting Of tho Court next
day, any juror so disposed may receive bribe.
II In criminal caao, he may offer to dofeat an
acquittal or a conviction for a confederation.
He may even agreo to q scaled verdict, In order
that he may 60 to the Interested parties, Inform
nj lin ~ cHn