Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-08-25
QUEER vERDIcTS.


1 How may one explain the odd verdict
t that are rendered? Often the SUM fount
seems inexpiicable. Lately Paterson
E jury, in an aggravated breach OF promise
case, found for the lady = " damages,
IS. 337" and inquiry arose, naturally
enough, "Whence the 81? Are jury's
scales for weighing wounded affections sc
delicate as that's One who has become
conversant with the interior methods of the
! jury.room will say that the sum may be not
precise valuation in which each juror con-
CURED, but an average of twelve various
estimates Probably the jury first voted
on the general question, 8 For plaintiff or
defendant" Finding all were in favor OF
some damages for plaintiff, they reached an
amount by each man writing sum on ship
of paper, casting all IN a hat, adding them,
and dividing the total by twelve. 1t is
contrary to law for jurors to agree before
hand that they will report an average of
their several sums as the verdict; but the
law cannot prevent their taking an average
to see how it strikes them, and then, II all
approve it, reporting it, and they often do
so. Ii the sums on the twelve slips should
total 500 GA, the twelfth, or average,
would be 49, 37.
!
reached by this willingness to compromise
| opinions rather than be kept out" longer.
| A Connecticut wife was prosecuted for
killing her husband by slow poisoning,
and the jury-after long deliberatlon-
found her guilty of murder in the second
| degree. Now, the second degree of muir
der embraces the more hasty, passionate,
undeliberate kinds. The first degree CON-
I 4 y - !, f.a1
| to which class poison eminently belongs.
| It's not probable that any one juror really
considered that finding of murder IN the
second degree was correct. More likely
some were stubbornly opposed to sending
a woman to be hanged and the Others,
rather than allow proved prisoner to have
the chance of escape, which would be
allowed her by disagreement and new
| trial, consented to unite in saying ''second
| degree" and so securing imprisonment for
! life.
It is fortunate that bad spelling or false
| grammar does not vitlate for there are
many stories of laundering verdicts. But
is there not the maxim, Fdlsa grammatical
non 0itidt, haec dim nlemiaiSSe .jauUbH, sed
retrograddre, hoe opus est. The revised
version of which is Grammatical faults
are not vicious it will amuse us to remem-
Der them afterward; but to correct them
! cow, the jury returned "We, the jury,
find the COW in the plaintiff" The Judge,
as gravely as might be, told the Clerk to
help them to write it, but the Clerk could
| devise no better forms than these : 1ou
say that You find the plaintiff in the cow"
"You say that you find the property OF
| A. A. 1e;i t.
at last, had to draft the verdict himself. In
horse cage the jury made return q We,
| the jury, find the value of the horse to be
! $3.50" The Court said that this would not
do at all. What the law wished to know
was not so much what the horse was worth
as to whom it belonged.
At the end of an English trial for false
pretenses, the jury said We find he do
| wrong, but we recommend him to mercy.
TIE Judge asked, What tartly, whether
they found the prisoner guilty, and they
answered: " Not guilty, but we recon-
mend him to mercy" This naturally
raised a laugh in the Courtroom, after
which the Judge explained that their find
ing was equivalent to an entire acquittal,
which was at length recorded. On a trial
! for larceny, the jury came back complain
oflense was g grand" or "petty" until
instructed whether to value the goods at
wholesale or at retail prices. Said the
Judge Gentlemen, considering the way
/ the rascal came by the goods don't think
the Court can afford to wholesale them to
! him" Verdict of grand larceny imme-
diately. In some States the jury decide
/ the punishment as well as the offense,
! Il Il 20
man wrote the verdict, "Gilty, deth"
Why find verdict for such silly sum
as 81 cents? Sometimes such finding
may be really valuable. Say that people
are in the habit of crossing your meadow,
and your fear that if they persist in doing
so for term of years the footpath will be-
come a matter of right. If, now, you sue
some one person for trespassing and re-
cover 81 cents, this will show, at any time
! after, that the meadow was yours, and the
townspeople crossed it by suffrance only.
| Often, however, nominal verdict means
that, though the defendant was legally in
fault, the jury disapprove the plaintiffs
suit A curious instance is just reported
from England. One Fourth of July night
an American in London let off some rock
cts, and the sticks fell into the garden of
neighbor. Neighbours wife was sitting In
the garden and either the rush of the
rockets when they assembled or the crash
of the sticks when they fell, frightened
her into chronic hysteria and neuralgia.
Lawsuit in which the jury assessed the
damages at one farthing. The plaintiff
complained to the Queens Bench of this
verdict as absurd. But the Judges said
that the meaning was clearly this I" We
cannot say that in strict law the plaintiff
had no right to complain, but the case is
so small and contemplate that We give a
verdict for farthing"
Perhaps the oldest instance is one mar
rated OF the Superior Court. At the close
of the week cause was called, when, be-
hold, one juror only was remaining in at
tendance of the whole number summoned.
He was told to take his place in the jury
box. He had previously exhausted all
efforts and excuses to avoid serving, and
naturally was not at all pleased at being
caught in this way. He claimed the entire
routine, heard the speeches and the Judges
charge, and then gravely said to the Court
that 20 the jury desired to retire Retire
he did, and remained "out so long that
the Judge passed an order for sealed ver-
dict. Next morning Court was opened, the
sealed envelope broken and the verdict
produced. 1t real: "The jury cannot
agree" y New York Times.
TRANSFERS OF REAL ESTATE