The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1876-04-18

mont, reads as follows, "No person shall
sell or furnish cider, at, or in any victual.
ing house, tavern, grocery, &c., or other
place Of public resort" l.. was arrested,
plead not guilty and demanded trial BY
jury. A panel Of six men we're summon.
ed and took the following oath "We
solemnly swear that without respect to
persons, or favor of any man, we will we'll
and truly try and true deliverance make
between the State of Vermont and the
prisoner at the bar, whom we shall have
in charge, according to the evidence given
in court and the laws of this state. So
help us God ~ The prosecution com.
menccd by swearing in witness A, who
testified substantially as follows: Il
know L.; he lives in this town, is doing
business in this village keeps grocery;
his place is one of public resort, have
bought cider of him within six months,
or less, (any ofcnse within three years
may be proven drank it and paid for it;
ho furnished it himself at his grocery"
Other witnesses we're sworn. All
had been furnished with cider, at the
same place and within six months. Sew.
eral otfenses were proven-but for the
purposes of verdict one is sufficient.
The testimony all being in, the lawyers
expressed their views both agreed there
had been case made-the law had been
broken. The attorney for the state de.
manded a verdict of guilty. He called
the attention Of the jury to their oaths,
to the law and to the facts. Z" IT'S against
the law" he said, &" to sell cider at
grocery. We have proven that l.. has
you have sworn TO decide according to
the law and the evidence You must
say guilty. How can you avoid it 2"
Counsel for respondent says, "Juries
have great latitude in their decisions,
great discretion, can decide what the law
Is can say not guilty if they choose. The
law don't apply to this case, respondent
don't sell enough don't mix with it strong.
or drinks; Ssceet cider, too, don't harm
any one can't fine citizen for doing an
innocent thing" And finally refers to
the "back hearted william" who made
complaint, and says, " Gentlemen of the
jury, don't claim there has been no of.
tense proven there has been technical
violation of the law, in this case, but un.
der the circumstances, believe you
ought to acquit this man." After the
arguments the court told the jury there
was but one duty-to see if the law had
been violated-if SO, to say guilty. They
had no right to do away with state law,
twas not for them to inquire into the
motives of the prosecution-but has the
respondent sold cider contrary to law?
The jury retire, and in five minutes
come in and in the face Of all render n
verdict of mot guilty !"
But, you ask in amazement chow
could they do it? The law was plain
and admitted. The facts were not denied,
and the oath to the jury was explicit.
How could they so decide ~ The answer
is very simple Simply write or speak
the word mot" Immediately before gull.
ty" and you have 1t. That does away
with the testimony, the law. and the oath
of the jury and makes the respondent q
free and innocent man What farce,
what trihing with ones oath what a
mockery
Trial by jury is looked upon as the
glory of the English law" says Sir VIM.
Blackstone. But in transplanting it to
this country and adapting it to justice
courts, and often to higher courts, it has
become the refuge OF the law breaker.
1t is said 1.-TWO heads are wiser than one."
| say, six good men, acting together as a
Jury, make one gigantic fool ! L1cYAN.