The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-12-11
ROASTED TO A CRISP
There Are Seven Jurymsn Who Will
Never Fnrget Judge Mediation.
THE FRANK-sTEELE CASE
Instructions of the Court Were Dis
regarded-The Men Failed to
Give a Satisfactory Reason
for Voting as They Did.

Bow county VINO VIII hefeaAeci INV
clearer idea of the duties of a juror ana q
greater regard for the orders ana an
structions of a court. The eight men
were members of the jury who tried the
1000 damage suit of III. L. Frank against
J. II. Steele
Under the instructions Of the court the
fury could find a verdict for Mr.. FRANK
only for the actual expense he had been
put to by reason of the attachment wnlcn
he complained had damaged his business
reputation to the extent of $4,000. He
testified that his actual expense was slo
hut when the verdict was opened tnis
morning II was found that the jury had
awarded him $125. After the verdict nad
been read the defendants attorney Judge
De Wolfe, asked that the jury be polled,
and John Long. Simon Hauswirth, John
Doyle, James II. Tucker. Philip Tucker,
A. w. Barnard. s. Slater and Cyrus Sy-
mons answered that they were In favor
of the verdict, and George w. Farlin, X
NJ Campbell. F. H. Symons and Charles
skogland voted against 1t. Judge De
Wolfe asked for and was granted a stay
of execution for 20 days. and then came
an explosion that was expected by those
who had observed the face of Judge NC
Hatfon. He turned to the jurors and ask
ed them how they could arrive at YER
dict 90 directly opposed TO the instruc-
tions of the court. but there was no an
swer and he told the four who had voted
against the verdict to take seats in the
body of the court room and the eight TO
remain in their seats in the jury box. The
Judge then questioned each one separate
Nv. beginning with Mr.. Slater. The lat
ter, as well as Jurors Doyle. Long, Sy-
mons, Philip Tucker. James Tucker, an
ewered that they did not consider the
courts instructions binding on the jury,
and thought that any verdict they might
agree on would be right. They thought
Mr.. Frank should have something for his
costs In the case and that he was dam
aged by reason of the malicious attach
ment They admitted that they had not
read the courts instructions. Simon
Hauswirth said he thought Mr.. Franks
business had been damaged even more
than the jury allowed him but added that
ne now saw that the jury had not con-
sldered the instructions carefully enough.
A w. Barnard was the only one of the
unlucky eight who could give a good rea-
son for voting for a SIPS verdict. He said
he thought Mr.. Frank had been damaged
that much by reason OF his loss of time
through the serving of the attachment;
that plaintiff had been put to inconven-
fence and that the attachment suit
against him had been brought through
malice. Mr. Barnard said that he under
stood from the instructions that Mr..
Inconvenience. costs, etc, of the attach
ment and that SIPS was fair amount of
damages for those items.
After the eight Jurors had been ques-
toned Judge Mediation called for the
codes and after looking through them he
turned to the Jurors and addressed them
as follows:
This examination. gentlemen, discloses
on the part of some of you a willful dis
regard of the Instructions of the court
in this case. and on the part of all. 1
think. a lack of exercise on the proper
consideration of the case which amounts
at the very least to willful neglect,
which Is equivalent to a direct DISPOSE
ton to disregard the instruction of the
court. You are called here to sit upon
cases and try them upon the evidence
under the instructions of the court. You
are not called here to act as jurors for
the purpose of exercising your judgment
contrary to the law. Your oaths as jury
men require that you decide these mat
ters according to the law and evidence.
ut frequently happens that jurors
make mistakes; II viii continue to hap
pen so long as human judgment is falli-
BILE. Honest mistakes. however serious.
can always be excused. Mistakes not so
made are not the subject of excuse.
I'm this case there certainly was no oc-
casion TO misunderstood the instructions
of the court 1t may be that some have
misunderstood them. or have, after hear
ing them read. forgotten or misconstrued
them. But there are some here who have
not, according to their own statements.
They were aware that they had been in
structed that they were not to take into
consideration any damage by reason of
injury to credit One juror gives the very
novel excuse that he agreed in the YER
dict because of the matter of who should
pay the costs Of this action. That shows
his qualification to act as juror In any
case. AZ nothing more.
when a court endeavors TO try cases
and try them fairly. in accordance with
law. II Is not materially assisted, but Is
in fact retarded by Jurors who do not
give the instructions proper considera-
ton and who do not endeavor to follow
the istructions upon the evidence. Jurors
of this class are worse than useless In q
court.
I'm this case you have consumed a day
in the trial and having taken up the time
of the court you return a verdict that the
court will not allow to stand for a mo-
ment when the motion for a new trial Il
made You can see the rank absurdity OF
disagreeing with the instructions OF the
court or failing to follow them. and In or.
der 10 bring to your minds forcibly tbs
mistakes you have made IN this case
shall not say mistake. however, but tn,
action you have taken-the court vii
demonstrate to you and to this communl
ty that the law IS supreme: that tn,
courts Instructions must be obeyed. Ant
the court will do that in a much mildel
way than IL feels the circumstances OF
the case might Justify on the part o.
some at any rate, those who have sa'
here and said that notwithstanding the,
underwood the instructions OF the cour
that they find a verdict based on thing,
they were not Instructed 20 consider ane
should have disregarded. There arc thos.
of you.who. think. are more guilty of tn,
actof omission than OF commission In thi
matter. the omission consisting OF you
not exercising proper diligence I'm IN,
matter. There Is one. think. who Nigh
justify his excuse altogether; that Is Mr.
Barnard While his answers arc not en-
tirely satisfactory, / am not able 10 con
clude form his statement that there ha'
been any willful disregard of the instruc
tons Of the court on his part / think h,
L.