, 1874-04-23
ROW TO CONFUSE 4 JURY.

The objects OF th0 statute OF lliin0iH foQusr-
ing tho chargo Of tho Judge to jury to bo In
writing wore probably two-fold: First, to pro-
won't tho Judge from influencing tho yordiot Of
the jury upon questions Of fact by 30 sktllfully
blending his stntomonta OF tho Inv with asaump-
ions Of faot M would croato. In their minds, tho
Impression TINT certain faots had boon fully
provot,, when, perhaps 1t vas their duty to find,
as i1rorB, TINT those facts Ind not been provon.
Secondly to aeouro to both ltiganta the power to
bring tho entire charge Of the Judge before tho
Appellate Court for review, and to correct tho
errors Of tho Judge, II my woro mado. Whoro
tho Judges charge is oral and oxtemporano-
ous, nB In most other States aud in England,
tho only mode by which counsel can bring auy
portion Of his charge before tho Appellate
Court for review ia by stating orally, at the close
OF tho Judges CHARGE their exceptions to such
PORTIONS, md aftorward reducing to writing tho
portions excepted to-, and submitting their state
mon!s to tho Judge himself, who decides in aet-
tllng thor bill of exceptions whether the coun-
sci have stated bis charge correctly or not. OF
course, If he lappons to have charged one thing |
to tho jury, md 10 insist upon 30 aottling tho |
bill Of exceptions as to show to tho Appellate |
Court tint he has charged q wholly different |
thing, tho injured party is without remedy.
Honco tho origin Of our statute. And yet tho
oral system had certain groat advantages mud,
since the presence OF plonographlo reporter
renders It Unnecessary in all cascs in which
such reporters aro employed that tho charge
should bo FIRST reduced to writing in order
TINT tho truo language used may bo accurately
preserved. 1t mny bo woll to inquire whether tho
disadvantages Of the systom Of written charges
do not moro than outweigh tho reasons that in
ducod Its adoption.
Tho systom, being basod on distrust OF the
Judge, either as to his capacity or bis honesty,
| necessarily works by shacklng his uttorance.
OF courae, being shnckled, he performs his judi
oal task as imperfeotly Us any other shack1cd
object hobbies through its raco-as imporfeotly
| as tho attorneys on either aido would sum up
the facts If thoy we're required to clip their hoar-
lug wings, abstract their rhetorical tall-feathors,
and read D scroll OF badly-written manu-
script to Blumboripg and diagusted
| Jury. II tho Dnuch Of Illinois had tho
numbers and power Of tho Bar, and had Eetal-
iatcd upon them by requiring that counsel
should address, tho jury in writing, would tho
difficulty in tho way of fully presenting oach
separate side OF tue case DO greater than the
prosont difficulty Of stating tho Law Of the whole
case lmpartially? It not only implies that our
| Judges aro not to bo trusted with tho privilege
xt1,5o o}1fr
them relatively to the Judges elsewhere; but, II
all our Judges wero vcritable N1ansGolds aud
AIarahalls, it would reduce them to the pitiful
1oycl OF readers of attorneys manuscripts. Amero
Dogborry could make o selection from such
propositions Of law as might bo offered to him
III writing by h1r. Leonard SWEET on the ono
side, or by 1lr. Corydon Beckwlth on tho other,
and road them with about as much safoty or In.
tluenco as Story or a Tentertlen. Aud very
few storys md Tontordens will be developed IT
tho performance Of duties 40 shaeklol in thoil
mode Of performance that Dogberry wonlt
, auswer as vol. Tho oral chargo OF an able ant
| honest Judge is the crowniug charm, tho che
| dmavre, Of d wcll-conductod trial. Howoye
ablo the counsel may be, their sophistrios dis
solyo, the confusions incident to the trial dsap
!, pear, and order comes out OF chaos, as
clear-hoaded and impartial Court proceed
with It's analysis Of tho case, until, at tic end
= counsel and parties alike are surprised TINT tho.
= should have differed on 1nAtter 80 plain. B
0 the ora! charge Judgois permitted to dofen
t the prInciploa Of impartial juyt;co Rs freely Il
the advocate may Hpepk in Tie interests OF oil
0 side. Is there no gain III tAiH ?
0 OF course, during the hurry Of q jury-trla}, n
0 Judge, unless he adjourna Court for that pul
l. pose, can write out charge that would oompar
t iu scope, luoidity, aud value with one which h
j. would deliver orally. Ho is dopondons mainl
+. OH tic two or tlroo hurried aontoncss ho may il
l. down while council are summing up, and on tt
> selection ho may mako from tho mass Of 3" ii
If struotons " counsel on both sidos may Bul
=, init to him. 1n rocont caso IN IL
10 Superior Court thirty pagcs of thct
instructions woro hRndod to tho judy
by tue opposing lawyers mnny Of tlem conBe
Ing OF sentences 10 involved that no Jury oou
ID 80 carry a1l tholr conditions In mind as to CON
o prohend their meaning, still less to inquire I'M
r. tloir truth. The ault was brought by an er
90 ployo Of contractor engaged In loading railrot
20 cars against the railroaa company for injuri
I'd sustained by tho omployo by the alleged ncg
as gonco of the company in running their cara upt
of him. We Boeot single sentence OF the
b. "instruotiona," so oatlod as sample, than viii
m nothing could DO bottor calculated to boWido,
ho Juror, enco tho final predicate deponda upon
It, leaBt sixteen conditions. all OF whioh the jur
IN 1nuat koep in mind at once or ho cannot q
H. through tho flnal proposition. Tho aontonce
IN ~ follows:
,w II tho plaif know tho location OF the traots Of
deiss,a,ta road. ~ Mt and adjacent 10 tho pare VIII
tho injury WAS received, ~ and had opportunities
Wit knowing tho manner In which tho awttch at tho
,rk end Of tho ELEVATOR building WAS handled, ~ aud
m which cars and engines wore operated over tho tn
running through the elevator, ~ ind s1ao had kao
o. edge Of thu faos II proved, ~ TINT tho north end
Of tns train, taswssa tho carA os wiah h paaoaa hi