New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1880-07-28
May Jurors Eat and DRINK

APRoPos of the jury drinking wine
during the trial of the seven Bishops, it
is ststed in Inst, 227, that "w when
the evidence is given the jury are to be
kept together till they bring in their
verdict, without speech with anyone,
and without meat or drink, fire or can
die, otherwise than with leave of the
court, by consent of the parties; and
the court may give them leave to eat
or drink at the bar, but not out of
court" If jurymen, after being
sworn, either before or after they are
agreed of the verdict, eat and drink,
the verdict may be good, but they are
Unable; but if it be at the charge Of
either parties tie verdict is void. Old
Dyer mentions a case where the Judge
was informed that the jury had eaten
food after they had retired, and he
found that they had had some "pip-
pins" of which some confessed that
they had eaten, but others said they
had not. His lordship severely repri-
handed them all, and fined those who
had eaten twelve shilIings each, and
those who had not six shillings each,
for that they had them Ii. c.. the up
ples) in their pockets In Hilary
Term, 6 Henry VIII, it appeared by y
motion in the Court of Queens Bench
that, in case tried before Lord Chief
Justice Reed, the jury, after being
locked up and before giving their YER
dict. had eaten and drank. The Chief
Justice fined them heavily, but took
their verdict. An application was
made in term to set aside the verdict
for irregularity, the jury having eaten
when they ought to have tasted; and
another motion was made to have the
fines inflicted upon the jurors RENTED.
The "twelve good men and true said
that they had all made up their minds
before they ate, and returning into
court to deliver their verdict found
that the Lord Chief-Justice had run
out to see fray; thereupon, not know
ing when the Judge would return, they
had eaten refreshments. The Court
held the fines to have been properly in
flicted, but did not disturb the verdict
In Iowa, lately, it was decided that
the drinking of two glasses of beer by
a juror, pending trial, after the adj
j0urnment of the court and eleven
hours before another session, did not
vitiate the verdict; nor does the taking,
by a juror, during the trial, of small
quantity of intoxicating liquor, for
medicinal purposes, at night. afford
grounds for new trial. And in Other
States the taking of spirituous refresh.
ments is not of itself sufficient ground
for setting aside verdict; nor even
though the drinking was in a saloon
and with the Sheriff. Although if a
juror takes the liquor at the invitation
and at the expense of the party who
afterward gets the verdict, or at his
own expense drinks so much that he
does not know what he is about, a new
trial will be granted. Cor. ALBANY Las0
Journal.
He was a young fellow in the hard.
ware line. One day, when the boss was
at dinner, = countryman came in to buy
some nuts. He found an article that
suited him, and wanted a dozen. Young
Blake looked at the price list and found
they were listed twenty-five cents
dozen, thirty off, He. gave low, in
verified whistle, and then, with sudden
inspiration, he handed the customer
five cents and told him he could buy
the nuts at the other store. ..By
George" he said, when he was telling
the Governor Of the transaction, :.
thought the best thing I could do was to
save the nuts. ANYHOW. = ss9,.;7stiaas