The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1875-04-28

pustElt3bi snSAt 4AsLukAuu htteutlOn III tnlS
State. ulSs1if " i ~ ~ ~ a.
IMpoRTANf Rithi0tE Dnrins the pre-
sent session of the Court of Common
Pleaal Me7 County Of York, Judge
III MackdyNfdeteal the following impor-
tant da0tsi6n "a 10 4he oompetency of
jurors who cannot read in cases involv-
ing an exemipstaop- blythe jury Of docu-
~ has reason on its side, and will prove
Of great practical value in our courts:
In the trial Of. an iasue Of fAct, inYufv-
ing the examination, of 9 written or
printed instrument, It Is good ground
read ss sa's3ss i.sn sass aay e. d1a%a
as o juror cannot read would not disqua-
1T hi@,t4 GSrse 81 such, ibntg ebuad go
t0AmPair his competency in the special
ans Sss 6 .y gossssssa ssases 81
ssa Mss fESsRs ,as & s5sss ssass
prescribed by statute for jurors is that
they shall be ''persons of sound judg-
ment." But if the judgment is to be
e1Snuassd intA6sex4minatlen ofa written
instrument. tho only avenue through
which it can be certainly informed is
closed to him who cannot read its con-
tentS Thus the cs4e. presented fortths
6odsid esation fof sthb ljhrys mAy arise
under an indictment for forgery, and
the detdudsb may be that the. party
whose name is alleged to have been
the accused to sign his name.
thereto; and the accused may thelsupoH
present in evidence dthbi written author
ity, alleged to have been executed by the
person whose signature he is charged
With having forged, land may adduce
letters admitted to be- in!the own proper
handwriting Of such person, in proof OF
the authenticity of tho sllhgsd authority
to sign. Clearly, in this case, the verdict
would. I'm Upon thSazaenfHysof &siter
of the letters and the writer Of alleged
authority to sign, and also upon the
further question, whether the terms of
the latter did convey the power TO sign.
Tie jury In gtch case must rest their
Judgments upon the writing themselves,
the authority TO sign being denied. This
class Of evidence viii bets Juror, who
cannot read, al if it did not exist. So
in case OF libel, where the jury are the
judges of the lay az we'll a. the facts;
the offence consists in, tho writing
and publishing Of false, scandalous
ana In6llclOuB statements, &C. Ihe
alleged libel must be set out in its
full tenor AndttesmA Ii tho juror can
not read, atid II he Is to repose his iudp-
ment upon the alEe9ed publication as
read Ia Court it follows that his verdict
must rest upon the crsdence that he
gives to MIN who reads, and not upon
the writing itself Why, therefore; does
the law require that the libSlous writing
itself shall be produced before the ;jhfy,
and that they, shall judge eof the facts,
and %hatAashS IsS "a g. p1oyeds hey cnnaetuts q
ted fthSt total desfness would be Rpot
grothd Of challenge ipI a case where The
testimony is orni; aha yet written tesh-'
ppny is 70 the man who cannot hear In
the case Before tho Court, thefefore, in
Ypftihg the examinAtion Of written in
stf f6tttfSnts IN evidence, the Jurors who
cannot 3ehd viii be excused -
. Under the above ruling, other iuries
thRn the original panel were drawn; and
1t is but proper TO say that during the
present week Of the term, the juries who
served are more competent than any
knSHb il thin County since reconstruc!
tiof. y forkrias Eaqttirer. '@"Hi.h' j."
=