The record-union., 1896-03-17

ions are coupled with the power of the
court to set aside a verdict. This power
is to be exercised. only when manifest
injustice will result from its non-exer-
else; only when the absolute necessity
for review of the verdict arises will it
be undertaken. The power lodged in
the court is great one, but must be
lodged somewhere.
Now what did the Supreme Court de-
eide in the Knutte case? Just this, that
in the exercise of his power and duty
the Judge must, if he is convinced that
the evidence as a whole sustains the
verdict, refuse to disturb the same;
equally if his sound Judgment is that
the verdict is not supported by the evi-
dence as a whole he must set the verdict
aside and do so unhesitatingly-
The court holds in fact that if it is a
case of guilt or innocence and the YER
dict is not supported by the evidence
as impressed upon the mind of the
Judge, who equally with the jurors had
opportunity to hear the witnesses and
note their demeanor on the stand, he
should set the finding of the jury aside.
The critics of the Supreme Court de-
clare that this makes the Judge thir-
teenth juror; that all the labor and time
and Judgment of twelve men are thrown
away if the Judge can of his own will
undo the verdict; that to this setting
aside there would be no end if vicious
Judge were bent upon freeing one ac-
cused that the decision is usurpation
of the right of the jury; that it is an
evidence of Capitalization of power in
the courts that is dangerous; that the
decision largely withdraws the protec-
ton of life, rights and property that
the jury system affords; that it is evil
dence of q disposition on the part of
courts to exercise functions peculiarly
belonging to jurors.
But the impartial mind will perceive
that the Supreme Court has simply and
plainly enunciated the law as it is-a
law that the people at any legislative
moment have the power to eliminate
or amend-namely, while it is the ex-
elusive province of the jury to find the
facts, it is the duty of the court to see
that it does so intelligently and accord
ing to rational and unprejudiced and
established methods of Weighing testi-
mony; according to the accepted and
unchallenged rules of analysis.
1t never has been peculiarly the func-
life, liberty or property; for all time that
function has been joint with the court
if, indeed, it is a jury function at all
The law affords the protection and the
court and jury but apply it under
proven facts. That corrupt Judge
might continually refuse to accept a
verdict of guilt is a possibility; so to, it
is possible that corrupt and prejudiced
jurors may continually return verdicts
of acquittal As a matter of fact, as is
common knowledge, the complaint of
modern days has not been aimed against
courts so much as against juries which
fail to do their duty with the courage
that generally characterizes the Judge
in the discharge of his obligations.
1t is said by some of our contempo-
rar:es that the decision of the Supreme
Court amounts to this, that the court
must now be convinced beyond a reason
able doubt, therefore the single doubt
great for good or i'll as the doubt or
non doubt in the minds of twelve men;
therefore there is no more use for
juries.
The court has not decided anything
of the kind or treated of the doubt
However, will our contemporaries give
any reason why the same rule should
not obtain with the Judge in forming
his judgment that is prescribed for
the juror? Would they set up one
rule for the court and another for the
jury as to method in searching for the
truth? The limitation, be it noted,
upon the power of the court to set aside
a verdict because of insufficiency of the
evidence to sustain it, of necessity where
there is a preponderence of evidence
against the defendant, involves the
qualification that the conviction of guilt
in the mind of the Judge must be be-
yond a reasonable doubt.
But, it is argued, a verdict should be
set aside only, when in direct contra
vention Of the evidence Now who is to
determine that condition of opposition.
if not the court, and how can it be de-
termined if the power complained of is
not reposed in the Judge?
The simple truth about this whole
matter, concerning which there is so
much hustle, is that few sensational
newspapers have discovered a mares
nest in decision that is in conformity
with the rule of the ages, in harmony
with the judicial system of the country
and is neither new nor novel;
ELECTRICAL LINES AND POLES
ON STREETS.