Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1877-06-06
7HE la WIN RELATION TO RE
CAN1ING JURORS.
AN OPINION OF JUDGE HALL.

CAN71NG JURORS,
AN OPINION OF JUDGE HALL.
Atthe April term of Court IN Bed.
ford county, u very important case was
tried before Judge Hall, in which D.
Orr Alexander, of Altoona, was prose
cutor and L. c. Alden. and George S,
Hamlin were defendants. The charge
was for embezzlement in not account.
ing for moneys which the defendants,
as agents of the prosecutor in the sale
of musical instruments, obtained in
payment Of instruments sold by them.
The jury was charged by Judge Hall
in the evening, and instructed il they
agreed during the night, they might
seal their verdict and separate until
morning. The jury agreed during the
night, and as per instructions of the
Court. scaled their verdict. rhe next
morning on appearing in Court, two Of
the Jurors, Scott W. AXE and Joseph
Weaverling, dissented from the YER
I dict. Rules were issued on the dis
senting jurors to show cause, and in
discharging the rules, Judge Hall laid
down the law in such cases in the fol.
lowing able and exhaustive manner:
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT SUR RULE
ON SCOTT A. AXE AND JOSEPH wEA-
VERLING 70 snow CAUSE, &c.
The respondents were jurors duly
empaneled and sworn in the case Of
the Commonwealth VS. Alden and Ham
lin, an Indictment for ielonous embez-
Element Alter being charged, the
jury retired to their room, on Wednes-
day afternoon. Not being agreed at
the hour Of ad journment, they were
granted permission TO seal their YER
dict and bring it into Court on Thurs
day morning. This permission was
granted with the consent of counsel
for defendants.
BY order of Court, made several
years SINCE, on the occasion of SINH
lar trouble, no jury is permitted to rem
der a sealed verdict except with con
sent of counsel, and such consent is 10
be considered waiver OF the right TO
poll the jury.
The jury having informed the ofii-
eer in whose custody they Were that
they had agreed on and bad sealed
their verdict, were permitted by him
to separate at about II o'clock.
On the morning OF Thursday when
the Court assembied' the tipS'ali VI
charge OF the jury made complaint
that during the night divers caves
droppers beset the door OF inc jury
room, and he was twice approached
by the counsel for the defendants
10 give him information as TO now th'
jury stood and Dgore me Jury came m
TO the Dor 10 det'cT mer uefd'd th'
. counsel for defendants presented
written request to have the jury poll
ed, and denied that he had agreed u
the sealing Of the verdict
The agreement OF counsel not nav
ing been noted oil record inc Court
with some reluctance, ordered inc jury
TO be pollcd, Therefore, the resspon
dents dissented from the sealed yer
dict.
The crime charged being felony
. and the jury having been separated
for number OF hours, thls dissen
made it necessary TO discharge th'
jury and to hold the defendants Z
bail for appearance ana trial at TN
next sessions. -,
And the whole circumstances OF th'
case wearing so grave an appearance
Of suspicion, these rules were grante'
on the jurors aforesaid to show caus'
why they should not be punished 10
, contempt for having assented TO u yer
diet in order to induce the olhcer Il
allow them TO separate, with lnten
, afterwards to dissent IN Court, am
thus thwart the due course OF justice
They have put IN answer, allegln!
that after they had agreed TO the seal
ed verdict and separated, they wer
unable TO sleep by reason oil consclen
tious scruples and regrets ana INA
they could only Obtain rellei oil mln'
by dissenting that inc assent wa
> honest at the time, ana not ielgne'
agreement to obtain discharge, am
that they only subsequently dlssenie'
= impelled by a conscientious conviction
OF duty alter hours OF reflection :.
II this is so, the rules must DC DIS
charged,
III aJnry declare themselves agree
when they were not IN order TO induc
the officer to permit them 70 separate
or il one juror should declare his as
d sent, with intent afterwards OF dlssen
!, in Court, this would be o great mlsdt
; moanor and renderthe persons llaoie l
: summary punishment. -Chiei Jusue
Shaw, OF Massachusetts, IN Lawrcnc
VS.; Strauss, II PICK, ?. ool.
That a juror might agree wlthou
due reflection, ana Afterwards nave
different view OF the case, ana nigh
feel impelled by high sense OF dnt'