The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-06-13
THE LAGER BEER TRIAL.
Grand Juror Redington Replies to Joel @,
Bakers Reform Club Address.

Dhhci hoioiM OAuu huuAooSs
Editor Rutland GlobS In your edition
of yesterday was a report of the temper
ance meeting held on last Sunday evening,
Ia which report you give an abstract OF the
remarks of Joel G. Baker, (my law part
ner) on that occasion. In said abstract
are several statements, which are SUCH
manifest Misrepresentation and mis-state-
ments of the true facts in the case, that in
justice to myself, / must throw little
light on the scene. was not required by
the laws of the state to appear at all at the
late "lager beer trial" and in fact received
no fees a, grand juror, from the state for
such appearance but at the request of
certain parties, did appear and act as at
tcrney for the state. Hence, l was of
course one of the attorneys on one side of
the case. Well. now, in the abstract above
mentioned, you cause Mr.. Baker to say
which | am informed he in substance did
not eay-the following:
"But there was one incident connected
with the trial of that case that knew of
and which ! think should be generally
known. 1t was supposed that had some
thing to do with the case, and the morning
of the trial an officer handed me list of
eighteen names, saying that the attorneys
on both SIDES of the case had agreed to
those names as jurors, and asking me If |
had any objection to any Of them. l was
startled at this attempt to pack a jury to
try q question of right, and told the officer,
Nyifhput rpaling fha that III either
attorney had handed him the list the men
were probably good men for his side"
III regard to this matter, the facts of the
case, as am informed by the officers, are
these: J. @. Thornton presented list of
IS names to the officer, with the request
for accentancn nv sjeeti0". bse tue onCer
tore up the list and made out list of his
own, as he states, and presented the same
as above alleged in the quotation from the
abstract, to Mr.. Baker also the officer
states to me that list Of 10 names was
handed to him by II. w. Nye, from which
to select jurymen, with the handwriting
of which list of names lie toas perfectly "a
MtttH anu hC SiSO tOlC uP tuib llSb,
and, furthermore, the officer, Geoge Craw-
ford will state what l now state, that
nerer was either Of said lists, or any other
list presented TO me for my perusal and OBJ
scrvatlon, nor did l see either list or any
other list, or know anything about the
same, nor present to any one any list or
have any idea of doing such thing, but
minded my own business and pursued the
even tenor of my ways, which action on
my part, it is to lie regretted, did not char
acterze the course of others in the matter.
Finally, in the above abstract, we find
the following regarding the jury question
There is no provision in the statute for q
jury and in this case the jury were, in
fact, go many outsiders, with no authority
in the case. They might have properly
furnished advice to the justice, POSSIBLY
AS EXPERTS. There has been but one
other case of the kind in the state. In
Chittesden county jury decided case
of this kind and it was carried to higher
court. Judge Wheeler decided that the
jury had no power in the case.
The jury then had no authority in the
case. The trial was farce which l hope
may not be repeated.
Inasmuch as l was the sole attorney for
the state in the trial under consideration,
the statement that it was a farce, perhaps
spplys somewhat TO myself, as well as to
the justice. and to Prout, Simons &
Walker, and w. II. Smith, attorneys for
the respondent, and to the six jurymen,
viz: Gen. Levi g. Kingsley, James G.
Dunn, b. ii. Burt, Walter G. Lsndon,
VIM. B. Mussey and j. b. Kilburn. Hence
on account of this personal application,
must, in Justice to myself, state that the
entire members of the bar of this town
should be included in this tarce-viz of
believing claimants in this case had right
to trial by jury-for they all believed
with me that claimants had a right to
trial by jury, till last Saturday, when ]
first asserted to my partner l did not be-
leve claimants had right TO trial by
jury after all, as could find no statutory
provision granting such right; he took is
sue with me. asserting the contrary, till
finally believe we were both convinced
there was no such right granted in this
case by the statutes of Vermont, although
it is question upon which there is no
special statutory provision, and | suppose
a majority of the lawyers in Rutland
would decide to-day as quickly in favor of
the respondent as for the state, if called
upon to decide regarding the jury question
And now, in conclusion, l must say l
seriously regret the necessity forced upon
me for thus appearing in public print but
/ could not allow such gross misstatements
whether made by the pen of reporter
or the result of mistaken zeal of a well
known good man-to be scattered broad
cast through the community.
LYMAN w. REDNGToN.
RUTLAND, June 10, 1876.