The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-04-20
The South Carolina Cases.


The reader saw OF course in yesterdays
Dispatch the telegram stating Judge BONDS
decision in the case OF the Democrats
prosecuted, or rather prosecuted. in his
court upon the charge of having been
guilty Of election frauds. Two OF the
white Jurors declared that the verdict
agreed upon and sealed up last Saturday
night and returned to the court on Nom
day was consented TO by them under a
misapprchension OF the facts. They were
constrained by threat of the negroes and
their white allies (there were five negroes
on the jury to agree to the sealed verdict.
The threat was that II they did not agree
to the verdict the accused would after
wards be tried by a jury composed alto
gether OF negroes. But when they got
into the temple of justice on Monday they
made their real opinion known. They
told Judge BoND Just how it was that they
had consented to the sealed verdict above
mentioned. To the establishment of the jul
rors, and no doubt to that of Judges, lawyers,
and spectators, Judge BOND decided that
that verdict was good enough for him.
lie had chance to send a Democrat or two
20 iail, and he soon showed that he did not
intend TO lose il. The case will be ap-
pealed. and his ruling will no doubt be
reversed by the Supreme Court OF the
United States. In the mean time the
Charleston NeacS. and Courier exposes the
ubiquitous ruling. 1t quotes BLACKSTONE as
follows:
a privy verdict is where the judge
hath left or adjourned the court, and the
fury being agreed. in order to be delivered
from their confinement. obtain leave to
give their verdict priyily out OF court /;
which verdict is OF no force unless after
wards affirmed by a public verdict given
openly in court, wherein the jury may, if
they please, vary from this privy verdict
Ii also quotes the Supreme Court OF South
Carolina lin 1880 as follows:
1.-THE authorities establish the PROPOSE
ton that until verdict has been published
and recorded it may be recalled and altered
by the jury, and il ii i, made known to the
Court, when il is proposed TO render the
verdict, that any one OF the jurors does moi
then assent to it, such verdict cannot be re-
N'iftN.
II also quotes Chief-Justice SHAW, Of
Massachusetts, rs follows:
"The only verdict which can be received
and regarded as a complete and valid yer-
diet OF jury upon which Judgment can
be rendered, is an open and public verdict
given and assented to in open court as the
unanimous act OF the jury, and affirmed
and entered Of record in the presence and
under the direction OF the Court"
As to sealed verdict Judge SHAW says
"But in such case the verdict rs to b.
affirmed in open court ms the unanimous
act Of thejury, and in presence OF the who'll
panel. Such an Affirmation Is the only eyi
dence the court can receive OF the free an(
unanimous assent of the jury TO the yer
DICT
The Ne,os and Courier SAYS:
s.OuT desire Is merely to show the coun
try that the defendants were acquitted O
every charge save one, and that the verde
was such rs, according 10 the settled law il
this State, should not have been received
''There Is no telling what can be accom-
plished with packed iurics, but the triumph
OF the official prosecutors will be short
lived. In every case questions will arts
which will be taken for final adjudication
II needs be, to the serene judicial atmos
phere OF the United States Supreme Court
The accused win suffer nothing but tempo
rary inconvenience. This does not lesser
the responsibility resting upon the mel
who do the wrong; nor will it diminish III,
just indignation OF the people who see tn,
courts OF the United States used, as in Pre-
sident Grants time, TO further the plans O
the ruling ring in the National Republican
party"