Lyon County times. [volume] (Silver City, Nev.) 1874-1907, 1886-05-08


The case seemed clear enough to
boy 10 years old.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for
long standing debt. The defendant
admitted that he contracted the debt,
and that he 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 transaction.
The amount sued for was $500, and the
Judge charged no to return a verdict
in favor Of the plaintiff. '-
When we got settled in the jury room
and elected foreman, he said:
"Well, suppose we must return
verdict for the full amount"
"Well,I don'tp' replied one of the
jurors-a man whom had selected as
an honest, conscientious juror
"But isn't it plain case?"
"No, sir! The plaintiff had two
lawyers, while the defendant had but
one. There was nothing fair about
thatw
"But the Judge charged us to re-
turn verdict for the amount" observed
another juror.
"Sposing he didw exclaimed an
old man at his left, "if the Judge
knows more about this case than we do
then what are we here for?"
(Which of em was the plaintiff, any
how?" solemnly inquired a solemn juror
whom had seen sleeping through most
Of the trial.
1.-THE red headed man, of course"
replied a young man who wore very
tight pantaloons and chewed plug to-
bacco with great ambition.
"Was it! Why, thought it was the
fat mani" exclaimed juror No. 8.
The foreman suggested that we mark
on slips OF paper the amount each juror
thought the plaintiff entitled to. His
suggestion was followed, and the
amounts ran from IS cents to the $500.
alt seems to me, !" he reflected, "that
the defendant either owes him $500 or
nothing"
| don't believe he owes him nuthin'," "
replied one Of the twelve.
''But you heard the evidenced"
"Hang the evidenced"
Some one suggested that we add up
the sums marked and slrike an average.
Another suggested that we returna
verdict for the defendant.
A third offered TO flip a cent and head
or tail for the $500 or nothing.
A fourth wanted some one 10 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.
AT the end OF an hour there were
eight men willing to return a verdict
for SIS.
AT the end of two hours there were
seven men who didn't care cent and
hve who were in favor OF the defendant.
AT the end of three hours six men
were in favor Of S4oo 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 announce
ment that we couldn't agree, when the
Juror who hidn't know plaintiff from de-
fendant raised his voice and protested:
"Judge, we could have agreed all
right if anybody had told us what the
case was about! | think we orter be
furnished with diagrams"-.N, Quad
ia Detroit Free Press.