The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1897-01-07
JuRlEs AND THElRvERDIcTs


In Fotm Times Agreement was Com
peiied Some Amusing Returns.
1t used to be the practice to starvC
disagreeing idrymen into agree
ment. At the conclusion of a case
the jurors were locked up without
fire, light or food, and thus they
had to remain until they decided
upon a verdict. Once upon a time
it was discovered thas q jury SC
locked up had refreshed themselves
with some apples which one of theii
number brought in his pockets. The
judge severely rated them on their
misconduct and fined them IL shil.
lings zach. In the reign of Henry
VIII, Lord c. .ef Justice Reed, pre-
siding at London city sessions, had
to punish jury for the same hei-
nous offense of taking refreshment
before their verdict had been deliv-
cred. The circumstances were pc
culiar and afforded an interesting
glimpse Of the manners of tho time.
Tho jurors, on a motion made on
their behalf to set aside the fine,
pleaded that it was the judge who
was to blame and not they. They
said that they returned into court
with their verdict after reasona-
I bic amount Q. elaboration, but they
found that his lordship had gone
out to see an anray. They there
fore returned to their room to await
his return and thought they were
doing no wrong in taking a little
lunch. The fine was upheld.
Many and di~0rting are the stories
told by smart lawyers of poor be-
fogged jurors. That jurors do some
times ask very idiotio questions and
return very foolish verdicts every
one with the slightest knowledge of
the interior of court of justice
must admit, but we must not blame
the honest man too much. The de-
bilitating effects of long wranglo
between Tweedledum, @. c., and
Tweedledee, Q, c., followed by a
pompous, abstruse harangue from
MIR. Justice Bumptious, should be
taken into consideration. The won.
der is, when one remembers the
pains taken by the learned counsel
to mystify juries, that so many SEN
sible verdiots are = tained Here arc
some cases whicil 10 not show trial
by jury il the brightest light:
A provision dealer prosecuted a
man for stealing piece of bacon
out of his shop. The evidence was
simple and undisputod. The prose-
cutor, sitting in little back parlor
with glass door, saw the thief
walk up to the counter, pick up the
bacon and put it in his pocket.
you saw mo through the glass,
did youl" asked the prisoner.
eyes, said the plaintiff.
"Well, then, must be let off.
You can't swear through glass"
The judge, of course, made light
Of this strange defense, but the jury
took the prisoners view and acquit-
ted him.
Baron Anderson once tried a civil
action, in MAich the plaintiff had
had his ribs broken and his skull
fractured by the defendant. The
facts were not disputed. 1t was only
a question Of damages, and the jury
awarded the plaintiff 81.
"Go home" exclaimed the judge |
savagely, land as you value ribs at
81 l hope you will get some liberal |
for your own on the
journey"
At Winchester in 1856 the same
judge tried some poachers. 1t was
noticed that the defending counsel,
the recorder of Portsmouth, chal-
lengod great many of the panel,
SO that the jury was very slowly |
There was no question
as to the ovideAce. The men ought
to have been convicted without a
moments hesitation. The jury,
however, acquitted them.
"You see, said one of the jurors
1--WE are all Portsmouth
men, and our recorder said one
thing and the ler old judge on the
bench said another, and we thought
our recorder was most likely to be
right, go we let the men off. -
Church Family Newspaper.