Iowa voter. [volume] (Knoxville, Iowa) 1867-1874, 1874-01-15
yuineas for his trouble and each man a


of payment by results smacks somewhat
of bribery, but was calculated to prevent
a jury yielding to temptation, as the
twelve Sudbury men did, who, finding
they could only agree in being very hum
CRY, broke open the door of their room,
and quietly went to their homes.
a. wise Indian judge made it rule
never to give any reason for his judg.
ments; consequently no one ever thought
of appealing against them. 1t is as well
that juries do from compulsion what the
Judge did from choice, for the Home
Secretary would have pretty time of it
if the rule were reversed. A good story
is told of how Devonshire jury came TO
acquit doctor who had accidentally
killed an old woman by mixing her med
icine trifle too carelessly. As soon as
they were comfortably seated in their re-
firing room the foreman told them they
must settle as quickly as possible, whether
or not they would hang the doctor, that
they might get home to supper in good
time, and the quickest way of dispatching
the business would be for him to take the
opinion of each in turn, and let the most
votes decide the matter. Upon this point,
at any rate the jury were unanimous, and
the foreman proceeded to put the CUES
ton. One said he did not care which
way it went-hanging the doctor would
neither harm him nor do him any good
another, that the doctor had lately saved
the lives of two of his children MORALLY
bad with the smallpox, while he had
only killed an old woman, who could not
have lived much longer anyhow it was
two lives against one, and he wouldn't
hang the man, not he. Others were for
a conviction on grounds equally ridicu-
lous. Fortunately for the poor doctor, all
at length agreed to verdict of not guilty.
Many verdict is, we may be sure, only
that of majority, acquiesced in by dis
sentients anxious to be spared trouble
some discussion, and sensible enough to
prevent their foreman announcing, as the
foreman of a Limerick jury did, that they
were "unanimous-nine to three" in
finding the prisoner not guilty. OF
course the Unanimous" party had to re-
tire again, and, of course, returned the
same verdict, and the accused was dis
charged. Being grateful for his escape,
he promised as he was leaving the court,
that it would be his last as well as his
first offense, Oblivious to the fact that the
jury had decided he had done nothing at
all. Physical arguments have been used
by majority when more legitimate ones
failed. A juryman once asked judge
whether his differing in judgment from
his eleven brethren justified his being
knocked down with chair. In the case
of another jury, one, at dispersal was
heard to say to another "Only | threat.
ened to kick him he'd never agreed +" In
America they would appear to h ave a
gentler mode of securing unani nifty.
lrah a, / nI 10 Iafo
fellow charged with stealing halfa-dozen
was so clearly proved that he told
him as much. Not at all discounted,
the accused said: "Never mind about
that; just abuse the witnesses, and spread
yourself on general principles, and it will
be all right''~ Sure enough. il was so;
b. Lincoln's establishment, the jury
brought in verdict of not guilty. Con
graduating his client on the result, he
could not help saying the affair was past
his understanding. The rogue's explana-
ton set his wonder at rest. "Well,
SQUIRE" said he, 'you see, every one of
them ERE fellows had piece of them
hogs" Indeed, according to the latest
advices from the States verdict cannot
be upset by reason of its being obtained
by bribery. In libel case tried in Lou.
isiana the losing counsel demanded a
new trial, offering to prove, by the evil
dence of the foreman of the jury, that one
fthe Jurors had received letter offering
a bride; by the evidence of one of the
court officers that he had delivered such
letter; and by other evidence, that one of
the Jurors had owned to accepting bride,
and that the foreman had been in constant
communication with outside parties. The
application was dismissed, the judge
ruling: "That no juror must disclose
what happened in the jury room; that
the confessing of juror could not be
used to impeach his verdicts; and that
the person to whom the discriminating
note was addressed could not testify to re-
ceiving it," The verdict had been rem
dered and registered, and could not be
disturbed.
A counsel trying to make the best Of a
bad case insisted that there was some evil
dence in favor of the view he wished the
Jury to take When he had done, Mr..
Justice Maule said to the jury: "The
learned counsel is perfectly right in his
law; there is some evidence upon that
point; but he's lawyer, and you're no
LAWYERS. and don't know what he means
by some 'evidence;' so I'll tell you. Sup
pose there was an action on bill of ex-
change, and six people swore they saw
the defendant accept it, and six others
knew him intimately, and swore TO his
handwriting; and, suppose on the other
side, they called poor old man who had
been at school with the defendant forty
years before, and had not seen him since,
and who said he rather thought the &C
ceptance was not in his handwriting;
why, there would be some evidence that
it was not--and that's what the learned
counsel means in this case" The apt IL
Illustration was too much for the jurymen;
they had seen their way clearly enough
before, but found it necessary to retire
and sslve the judges abstruse con
undrum ere they could agree upon the
verdict. Another bothered jury, we sus-
pect, was that American one which was
responsible for, 1--WE find the prisoners
not guilty, but believe they hooked the
porkn' a verdict matched by Carlisle
jury, when they found a waich-stealcr
guilty, but recommended him 10 mercy,
because il was really very hard To say
whether he had taken the watch or not.
An Irish jury recommended man to
mercy on the grounds that he had no re-