Mountain Home bulletin. (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1888-1889, 1889-05-18
fREJUDlCED vERDlCTS,
why Jurors Want to Decide In Favor -
Poor Clients.

Poor Clients.
"You would be surprised how little
the average jurymau appreciates the [
Importance of his position" remarked |
a young man who was drawing his pay Z,
for weeks jury duty. "Fm not
sufficiently we'll posted in law to say
that the whole jury system should be
abolished. but my experiences of the
last week tell me that it should be
radically rcmodeled. On Monday l
went to court and found $50 other men,
like myself, kept away from their
business. 1t was time for recess when
| the score or SO of excuses had been
made to the judge. and the court |
hadn't been reopened many minutes
before we were dismissed for the day.
! The next morning AS each case on the
docket was read off IA lawyer would
ge, up and ask for an adjournment on
some trivial plea or other
"rhe jurymen would then be dis
missed until the afternoon, and soon
after reassembling would be excused
till the next day. This dillydallying
was kept up the en- ire week, and
although we had nothing to do the
days were so broken into that none of
us could attend to any private busi-
ness. The 100 jurymen We're divided
into two panels. The one | was in
tried single case, and l scarcely
think the other panel had any thing
, more to do. The iurymen were paid
81. 800 for their weeks work, while
: the two cases tried were for
{ sums amounting to only $500. Law
. comes high, and it seems that the
q country must have il.
81 have spoken of how little serious
O attention the average juryman gives
a to case. The one we tried was Il sui
a for 800. The moment we wer,
locked up in the jury-room one of tn
r men began TO boss every thing
a Boys said he, I'm an old ham
% at this business, and have been OF
n more juries than any other man in tn
4 city. I'll show you how to 90 abou
= the case so as to decide it in FEY
:, moments, and we can get home i
= time for supper. | guess you're a
=, for he plaintiff; she's a poor woman
,f and the other fellow has plenty {
n dust. If we decide in favor of tn
80 plaintiff. Wen ouly have to agree Il
40 to the amount of the verdict, and the
m the job is done
- II was the only one who held on
"a but all argument was useless. III
n mere fact that the woman was poo
.t seemed enough to convince the jur.
ar men that she deserved a verdict in h,
I'd favor The rich man gets very lit
N fair play in the petty courts, as far
ha the jury is concerned. The big bui
na have influence enough to get excuse
from jury duty, and they leave Il
box to be filled by small tradesme
These jurors are mostly men of su
pronounced socialistjc tendencies til
er- it is utterly impossible for them
see beyond their own pet theori,
ms They are no doubt honest enough as
OF rule but their prejudices are t
Ter strong to allow them to judge in
lis case where labor and capital form t
lot bone of contention"
IN A lawyer. commenting on the sal
III SUBJECT sala tnat us lle JuaSc looh
en-, directly opposite view from the jul
ew men things were rather even up.
We a case of poor plaintiff and rich
or fendant, whatever feeling the jud
he might have was sure to be agail
err sending the matter to the jury.
'ys knew the jury would be apt to fax
lb, the plaintiff, and that meant that
'el- defendant would appeal the case.
md that event the judges decision W
he at to be reversed, a thing which
If would not be likely to relish. N.
urs Sun.