Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1875-04-15
IMPORTANT RULING.

During the present term of the Court OF
Common Pleas for the county Of York, Judge
Mackey rendered the following important
opinion as to the competency of jurors who
cannot read, in cases involving an examina-
ton by the jury of documentary evidence.
The decision certainly has reason on its side,
and will prove ofgreat practical value in our
Courts. ..,..
In the trial of an issue of fact, involving the
examination of written or printed instru-
ment it is good ground of challenge to a juror,
that he cannot read. The fact that a citizen,
duly drawn as juror, cannot read, would
not disqualify him to serve as such, but would
90 to impair his commpetency in the special
case stated. A juror may be unable to read,
and yet may be possessed of a sound judgment
and of great mental vgor. The onl ly mental
qualification prescribed by statute for jurors
is that they shall be "persons of sound judg-
ment." But if the judgment is to be exer-
cised in the examination of written instru-
ment the only avenue through which it can
be certainly Informed, is closed to HIM who
cannot read its contents. Thus, the case pre-
sented for the consideration of the jury, may
arise under an indictment for forgery, and the
defense may be, that the party whose name is
alleged to have been forged to the note or
draft in question, authorized the accused to
sign his name thereto, and the accused may
thereupon present in evidence the written au-
thority, alleged to have been executed by the
person whose signature he is charged with
having forged, and may adduce letters ad-
mitted to be in the own proper handwriting of
such person, in proof of the authenticity of
the alleged authority to sign. Clearly, in
this case, the verdict would turn upon the
identity of the writer of the letters and the
writer of the alleged authority to sign, and
also upon the further question, whether the
terms of the latter did convey the power to
sign. The jury, in such case, must rest their
judgments upon the writing themselves, the
authority to sign being denied. This class of
evidence will be to q juror, who cannot read,
as if it did not exist So in case of libel,
where the jury are the judges of the law as
we'll as the facts The oHense consists in the
writing and publishing of false, scandalous
and malicious statements, &c. The alleged
libel must be set out in its full tenor and terms
If the Juror cannot read, and if he is to repose
his jud gment upon the alleged publication as
read in court, it follows that his verdict must
rest upon the credence that he gives to him
who reads, and not upon the writing itself
Why, therefore, does the law require that the
libellous writing itself shall be produced be-
fore the jury, and that they shall judge of the
facts and whether, as proved, they constitute
, Eho1 nnJor tho low2
1t will be admitted that total deafness
would be good ground Of challenge in case
where the testimony is oral and yet written
testimony is to the man who cannot read'
what oral testimony is to the man who cannot
hear. In the case before the court, therefore,
involving the examination of written instru.
ments in evidence, the jurors who cannot read
will be excused.
Under the above ruling other juries than
the original panel we're drawn; and it is but
proper to say that during the present week OF
the term, the juries who served are more com
petent than any known in this county since
raoonetruntioO