The Nevada picayune., 1885-05-28
X Judge That SprHks ont in Mceth.'

It is seldom that the judge of e court, upcn receiving the verdict of jury, tells the jury what he thinks of tho verdict. This is, peEhaps, good general rule, since under our system of jurisprudence it is the province of juries, and get of judges, to decide questions of fact in the trial of cases. Judgss preside and explain the law, and juries render verdic,s in respect to the facts as shown by the eyI- dencc.
 Judge Van Brunt, however, was so astonished when the jury in the case of Short, the assailant of Phc- Ian. last week returned a verdict of acquittsl, that he instantly said: Gentlemen of tEe jury, l cannot put exp rcss my surprise at the yer diet you have rendered. You are discharged from further attendance at this cogrt" It was well thus summarialy to get nd of jurors who had rendered such verdict. The district attorney, who tired the case for the State, says of the verdict: "E is simply outrageous The newspapers of the city have greeted 1t with a torrent of indig- nant dcnunciation, as "a shameful miscarriage of justice which will bring fresh discredidit to our city. /" "a verdict which has allowed a rufIian to go scot free," and ''as shameless a one as ever disgraced <ke criminal annals of this rity."
 There was not, in the light of the evidence, a particle of doubt about the fclanious assault of Short upon Phclan; and that the latter was not actually killed on the SD t was not the fault of the former. Snort did his best to mur- der dis victim. The nature and number of the wounds inflicted on Phelan, as well as the instrument with which they were inflicted, show that the assault was "a mur- dcrous one in the intention of the assailant. The evidence proved just what tue indictment charged against Short-namely, an assault with , intent to commit murder, which the laws of the State make a high crime and punish severely.
 And yet the jury, after hearing all the evidence, after having been sworn to find Il verdict accord ing to evidence, and after being in- structed by the court as to the law applicable 10 the case, having sol emuly declared on oath that no that no crime whatever was com mitted by Short. We regard the verdict as an abomi nable and OK. ceedingiy dangerous failure of jus tice, and do not at all wonder that Judge Van Brunt was indignant, or that he spoke to the jury as he did, and at once discharged them from any further attendance at court, Ire dynamiteurs who thronged the court room shouted themselves o0t of breath over the result; yet all good citizens and all sensible people must deplore the moral effect of such vcrdicts. There is not a person in this city whose life is not less secure by reason of Shorts acquittal. The effect is to encourage crime, and give 10 tho criminal classes the presumption of immunity if they commit crime. The protective force of law is weakened, and the whole jury system is brought into discredit by such false and stupid verdicts. It is to he hoped that the twelve men who acquitted Short will never again find their way into the jury box. It is quite enough to have had them there once. They are not the sort of persons whom the public can safe ly use in the administration oflaw. New York Independent.