Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1886-09-09
In the Jury-RoOm.

The case seemed clear enough TO a boy
10 years old.
The plaintiff sued the defendant on a
debt. The defendant admitted that he
contracted the debt, and that he had
never paid it. He tried to show, as an
offset, that he once lent plaintiff some
money, but he failed to even establish
the date of the transaction. The amount
sued for was $400, and the judge charg-
ed us to return verdict in favor of the
plaintiff.
When we got settled in the jury-room
and elected foreman, he said:
"Well, l suppose we must return a
verdict for the full amount?"
''Well, don't!' replied one of the
jurors-a man whom l had selected as
an honest, conscientious juror.
"But isn't it plain case?"
mo, sir! The plaintiff had two
lawyers, while the defendant had but
one. There was nothing fair about
that!''
"But the Judge charged us to return
verdict for the amount" observed an
other juror.
"Sposing he did!" exclaimed an old
man on his left; ''if the Judge knows
more about this case than we do, then
what are we here forp''
(Which of 'em was the plaintiff. any
how?" solemnly inquired solemn
juror whom l had seen sleeping through
most of the trial
'The red-headed man, of course" re-
piled young man who wore very tight
pantaloons and chewed plug tobacco
with great ambition.
"Was it! Why, thought it was the
fat mani" exclaimed juror No. 6.
The foreman suggested that we mark
on slips of paper the amount each juror
thought the plaintiff entitled to. His sug-
gestion was followed, and the amounts
ran from Is cents to $400.
"It seems to me-" he reflected, ''that
the defendant either owes him $400 or
nothing"
II don't believe he owes him nuthin',"
replied one of the twelve.
"But you heard the evidencep"
"Hang the evidence"'
Some one suggested that we add up
the sums marked and strike an aver
age.
Another suggested that we return a
verdict for the defendant
A third offered to flip cent and head
or tail for the $400 or nothing.
A fourth wanted some one to tell him
if the debt hadn't been outlawed.
1t was finally discovered that we
stood five for the plaintiff and seven
for the defendant and the foreman
wanted to know what we should do.
"Well," said one of the seven, ''if we
agree with you in this case, will you
agree with us in the neXt?"
He couldn't promise, and the leader
of the dissenters declared that he would
remain in that room lifetime before he
would agree with the five.
And at the end of an hour there were
eight men willing to return verdict
for $75.
At the end of two hours there were
seven men who didn't care cent and
five who were in favor of the defend
ant.
At the end of three hours six men were
in favor of $400 and the other six were
playing poker.
In another hour two of us favored
$400 and the ether ten had made up
their minds that at least two out of the
three lawyers ought to be in Jail. We
finally marched in with the announce
ment that we couldn't agree, when the
juror who didn't know plaintiff from
defendant raised his voice and pro-
tested: =
Judge, we could have agreed all
right if anybody had told us what the
case was about! think we orter be
furnished with diagramsr'-M. Quad in
Detroit Free Press.