Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1886-05-06
IN THE JURY-ROOM.
The Twelve Good and True Men Did Not
Agree.
Detroit Free Press

Agree.
Detroit FREQ Press
| The case was clear enough to 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 $500, and the
judge charged US to return verdict in
favor of the plaintiff.
When we got settled in the jury-room
and elected a foreman he said:
''Wel, suppose we must return a YER
dict for the full amount?"
"Well, DON'T" replied one of the jur-
ors.
''But isn't it plain case?"
mo, sir! The plaintiff had two law
yers, while the defendant had but one.
There was nothing fair about that, was
there?"
'But the judge charged US to return a
verdict for the amount" observed another
juror.
"'Sposing he did!' exclaimed an old
man on his lert; ''if the Judge knows more
dDOuG IulS case IMAM we 90 Gn6n what are
we here fOr?"
(which of 'em was the plaintiff, any
how" sOlemnly inquired a solemn Juror,
whom had seen asleep during most of the
trial.
"The red-headed man, of course" re-
piled young man who wore tight panta-
looms and chewed plug tobacco with great
ambition.
''Was il! Why, I 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
run from Is cents to $500.
at seems to me-" he reflected, ''that the
defendant either owes him nothing or
$780,"
II don't believe he owes him nuthin'."
replied one.
"But you heard the evidence"
Hang the evidence"
Some one suggested that we add up the
sums marked and strike an average.
Another suggested that we return a YER
dict for the defendant.
A third offered to flip a cent and head
or tail for the $500 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 de-
PENDANT 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 premise, and the leader of
the dissenters declared that he would re-
main in that room a lifetime before he
would agree with the five.
At the end of an hour there were eight
men who were willing to return a verdict
of SIS.
At the end of two hours there were
seven of the jurymen who didn't care a
cent, and five who were in favor of the de-
PENDANT.
At the end of three hours six men were
in favor of $500, and the other six were
playing poker.
In another hour two of US favored $500
and the other 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 an
nouncement that we could not agree,
when the juror who did not know plain
tiff from defendant raised his voice and
protested:
"Judge, we could have agreed all right
if anybody had told US what the case was
abort! I think we orter be furaished with
diagrams"