The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1874-11-26
A HUNGRY Jury:
Or Doubtful Case OF David Du-
btO0s.
.Rogues must hang, that jurymen may dine


The public have doubtless heard Of
the fate Of poor David Dubious, whose
case was decided by q hungry jury.
But it may not be uninteresting to
state few of the particular circum-
stances attending that decision.
II was case of life and death Wv
bu. one doubtful and difficult to de-
eide. The evidence was entirely cir
cumstantial, and, in many respects,
contradictory. The prisoner, unfor-
tunately, bore very bad character;
and many people did not hesitate to
say, that, If he had not committed the
murder, he was none too good to do
it. But what made his conduct still
more unfortunate, was the condition
Of the stomachs Of the jury. They
had been kept out all night, and it
was near the hour of dining!
Consider, then, the perilous condi-
ton Of the prisoner, his life depend
ing on such untoward circumstances
-presumptive' evidence, a doubtful
character, hungry jury. He might
have got over the two first, but wo to
him whose life depended ON the two
last. A comfortably filled stomach is
one of the best guarantees for acts Of
Justice, kindess and charity. Trust
a hungry jury with ones life? New
erl Hunger renders a man savage,
and he who has stomach to let, has
seldom any bowels Of compassion.
In the case of David Dubious, ,sev.
en- OF the jury were for hanging, and
FIVE for acquittal. Thus they had
been some time, without any prospect
Of ever thinking alike. Both sides
were conscientious; both felt bound
in honesty by their oath TO adhere to
what they conceived TO be the true
state of the case. Said those in fa-
vor Of the hanging
"The man is very evidently guilty,
and we could neither answer to God
nor our country, should we consent
to his acquittal."
While those on the other side said
- "We have serious doubts Of his
guilt; the evidence is circumsr aftial
and We could not answer ii neither to
God nor our .consciences to take the
poor fellows life." r1
'Gentlemen," said the constable
for the fifteenth time, shave you
agreed upon your verdict"
"No," said the foreman, land what
is worse, we are not likely to agree,
wherefore we beg you once moro to
conduct US into court"
.There is no use OF it," said he of
the tall staff, ''the Judge will send
you back"
"At all events said one of the
jury, "let Us have some hing TO eat.
and not keep us shut up here sarv-
ing"
"The more you starve the sooner
you will be likely to agree" return
ed the constable. "Besides, you
know it is strictly against the law to
allow you anything to eat until your
verdict 10 made up"
The jury again took up The subject
and endesvored with all their might
to agree; but with no better result
than before. The case was q stub.
born one, and would not yield to the
unanimous desire for agreement.
The jury was at length permitted
to return into court, where, on stat
ing to the Judge that it was utterly
Impossible fsr them to make up YER
dict, his honor gave them = severe
reprimand for their inability TO thinl
alike, and peremptorily sent them ou
again, declaring with an awful shake
Of bis wig, that they should neit!:e
eat nor drink, until the case of th'
prisoner was decided.
"Alas !" said one, 1--WE must agre'
upon . verdict Or agree TO s.afve."
"The latter we can never agree to,
said another sclf-preserva,icn is tn
krst law Of nature. What time .
day 10 it, neighbour
Il 1T wants half IN hour Of dinns
timew