The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1877-06-15
AN IMPORTANT OPINION.


| county, a very important case was tried be-
fore Judge Hall, in which d. Orr Alexander,
| of Altoona, was prosecutor and f. @. Alden
and George 5. Hamin were defendants. -
The charge was for embezzlement in not
accounting for moneys which the defendants,
| as agents OF the prosecutor in the sale of
musical instruments sold by them. The
jury was charged by Judge Hall in the even
| ing, and instructed if they agreed during the
| night, they might seal their verdict and sep
arate until morning. The jury agreed dur.
ing the night, and as per instructions of the
Court, sealed their verdict. The next NOR
ming on appearing in Court, two of the jur-
| ors, Scott w. AXE and Joseph Weaverling,
dssented from the verdict. Rules were issued
on the dissenting jurors to show cause, and
| in dscharging the rules, Judge Hall laid
down the law in such cases in the following
| able and exhaustive manner:
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT SUR RULE
ON SCOTT W. AXE AND JOSEPH wEA-
VERLING TO SHOW CAUSE, &c.
The respondents were jurors duly empan-
| eled and sworn in the case of the Common
wealth VS.. Alden and Hamlin, an indictment
for felonious embezzlement, After being
charged, the jury retired to their room, on
| Wednesday afternoon. Not being agreed at
the hour of adjournment, they were granted
permission to seal their verdict and bring it
into Court on Thursday morning. This per-
mission was granted with the consent of
counsel for defendants.
BY order of Court, made several years
since, on the occasion of similar trouble,
no jury is permitted to render a sealed ver-
dict except with consent of counsel and
such consent is to be considered waiver of
the right to poll the jury.
inn o.-ip inf oil 4l,n
whose custody they were, that they had agreed
on and had sealed their verdict, were per-
mitted by him to separate at about II
| o'clock.
On the morning of Thursday, when the
Court assembled the tipstail in charge of the
jury made complaint that during the night
divers eaves-droppers beset the door Of the
jury room, and he was twice approached
by the counsel for the defendants to give
him information as to how the jury stood ;
and before the jury came into the boz to delig-
er their rertict the counsel for defendants
presented written request to have the jury
polled, ana denied that he had agreed to the
sealing Of the verdict.
The agreement of counsel not having
been noted Of record, the Court, with some
reluctance, ordered the jury to be polled.
Therefore, the respondents dissented from
the sealed verdict.
The crime charged being felony, and the
Jury having been separated Tor numberoi
hours, this dissent made 1t necessary to dis
charge the jury and to hold the defendants
to bail for appearance and trial at the next
sessions.
And the whole circumstances OF the case
wearing so grave an appearance OF suspicion,
these rules were granted on the jurors atore-
SAID to show cause why they should not be
punished for contempt for having assented
to verdict IN order to induce the oihcer to
allow them to separate, with intent after
wards to dissent in Court, and thus thwart
the due course ofJustice.
They have put in an answer, alleging that
after they had agreed to the sealed verdict
and separated, they were unable TO sleep by
reason of conscientious scruples and regrets,
and.tbat they could only obtain relief OF mind
by dissenting that the assent was honest at
the time, and not teigned agreement to OBJ
tain discharge, and that they only subse-
quently dissented impelled by conscien-
tious conviction OF duty after hours OF re-
Election.
If this is so, the rules must be dis
charged.
"lfa jury dec clares themselves agreed when
they were not, in order to induce the officer
to permit them to separate, or if one juror
should declare his assent, with intent after
wards of dissent in Court, this would be a
great misdemeanor, and render the persons
liable to summary punishment. "-Chiet
Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts,, in Law
renee VS.. Strauss, II Pick. p. sol.
That juror might agree without due re-
Election, and afterwards have different view
of the case, and might feel impelled by a
high sense of duty to change his verdict, is
true. And such change from such mo-
llVe, whist II "oulu alsue weahness III as
'eI,'ng "Gulo uo1I, ,L 'G G,ot ti,nt
hu! III view VI .le iac' tn"o d nls'i,al l re- C.
stl's i Eien' JA'uhSo I W 'nu anu y, ~
-, sno MNu.o lIit;o, IaLo ~ ~
''',I 80 taonnt;nan, of ~ ,h'
IT, "saa,,t a, s,,,Iso,,,,a,,t eba,,5,o
!aher assent anu supae'luentS 'n""se VI liin'
" ~ ,'idon ;don noro sTaroJ 70 roroiI tho,
iurors are at liberty TO agree in The iurv.roon
and afterwards to dissentsin Court..that This
il a right they have to exercise at their dis.
cretio1 if would result in an enormous ex,
nanso 70 the countv and in n serious imneI.
iment to the administration of Justice.
Tbe rasnondents however. denv that thev
were ,nnroached bv any one with the suG.
gestion ar solicitation that they should dis.
? Sent in Court
And al.houoh il is clear from the afIida.
wits nf the ton remaining iurors as well as
from, tba answers of the resnondnnts that
thew agreed Voluntarily. and without being
f&nr:ed & into acouiescence by anv improper
| mean. and after full discussion and deliber.
4 ntion e~tendina from ! o'clock to II o,clock
m nevertheless under their affidavit.
hat fl thew chanred their minds after further
rndection from conscientious convictions Of
dntv there being no further proof TO the
D conirarv the ruIss must he DISCHARGED
,r,' ,,'o ,>
, :. Inc oatn oil Jurors Is 10 render Irue Yer. YER
dlct according I" the evidence, unless they
are discharged by the Court lHey nave nc
n6ShI 10 separate uhlll tney are iullS agfeeu
, Inc law requires au UNANIMOUS verdict, -Snu
= delay the urv are to be kent without meat
drink fire or candle until thew all unani-
mousIv agree. "a Black. Com, D. 875.
.Tfo inn,, oo+ Or drinI. ot oil or ho,o an,