The Logan County banner. [volume] (Logan, W. Va.) 1889-1903, 1889-05-16
PRE5UDlcED vEEDTcTs:
My jurors Want to Decide In Favor Of
Il Poor Clients.

my Jurors Want to Decide In Favor OF
Il Poor Clients.
.'You would be surprised how little
the average iuryman appreciates the
Of his position remarked
u young man who was drawing his pay
for q, weeks jury duty. .'rm not
sufficiently well posted in law to say
that the whole jury system should be
abolished. but my experiences Of the
Inst week tell me that it should be
RADICAL remodeled. TN Monday 4
vent 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 oa the
docket was read off lawyer would
get up and ask for an adjournment on
somu trivial plea or other
.The iurymen would then be dis
missed until the afternoon, and soon
after reassembling would be excused
till the next day. This dilly-dallying
was kept UP the en'ire week, and
although we had nothing to do the
days were so broken into that zone OF
lis could attend to any private bust
ness The $50 jurynen were divided
into two panels. The one l was in
tried single case, and scarcely
think the other panel had any thing
moro to do The jurymen were paid
81 500 for their weeks work, while
the two cases tried were for
sums amounting to only $500. Law
comes high, and it seems that the
country must haveit.
II have spoken of how little serious
attention the average juryman gives
to a case. The one we tried was suit
for 800. The moment we were
locked up in the jury-room one OF the
men began to boss every thing.
Boys, said he, ,m an old hand
at this business, and have been on
more juries than any other man IN the
city. I'll show you how to go about
the case so as to decide it in few
moments, and we can get home in
time for supper / guess you're all
for The plaintiff; shes poor woman,
and the other fellow has plenty OF
dust. II we decide in favor of the
plaintiff # ~we4 l-e#Iy haye-@te- agree-as
to the amount OF the verdict, and then
the job is done.
II was the only one who held out,
but all argument was useless. The
mere fact that the woman was poor
seemed enough to convince the jury
men that she=desesged= Observation-Disclosures
favor. The rich man gets very little
fair play in the petty courts, as far as
the jury is concerned. The big bugs
have influence enough 10 get excused
from jury duty, and they leave the
| box to be filled by small tradesmen.
These jurors are mostly men of such
pronounced socialistic tendencies that
it is utterly impossible for them to
see beyond their own pet theories.
They are no doubt honest enough as a
rule, but their prejudices are toe
strong TO allow them to Judge in a
case where labor and capital form the
bone OF contention.
A lawyer, commenting on the same
subject, said that as the Judge took .
directly opposite view from the jury.
men things were rather even up. In
a case OF poor plaintiff and rich de
PENDANT, whatever feeling the Judge
might have was sure to be against
sending the matter to The jury. He
Eknew the jury would be apt TO favor
The plaintiff, and that meant that the
defendant would appeal the case. In
that event the judges decision was
apt to be reversed, thing which he
would not be likely to relish. IN. Y.
| Sun.