Spirit of the age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1845-1913, 1897-12-25
JURlES ANDTHEiRvERDlCTS.
In Former Times Agreement was Com
pelled-S0me Amusing Returns.


In Former Times Agreement Was Com
pelled-some Amusing Returns.
1t used to be the practice to starve
disagreeing jurymen into agree
ment. AT the conclusion of a case
the jurors We're locked up without
fire, light or food, and thus they
had to remain until they decided
upon verdict. Once upon time
it was discovered that jury so
locked up had refreshed themselves
with some apples which one of their
number brought in his pockets. The
judge severely rated them on their
misconduct and fined them 12 shil-
lings each. In the reign of Henry
VIII, Lord Chief Justice Reed, pre-
siding at London city sessions, had
to punish a 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 the time.
The jurors, on 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-
BILE amount of deliberation, but they
found that his lordship had gone
out to see an ARRAY. They there.
fore returned to their room to await
his return and thought they were
do;no no ur-a.-e-:-. tsshiriS Httle
lunch. The fine was upheld
Many and diverting are the stories
told by smart lawyers of poor be-
logged jurors. That jurors do some
times ask very idiotic questions and
return very foolish verdicts every
one with the slightest knowledge of
the interior of court of justice
must admir-, but we must not blame
the honest man too much. The de-
bilitating effects of long wrangle
between Tweedledum, q. c., and
Tweedledee, Q. c., followed by a
pompous, abstruse harangue from
Mr.. 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 sch
sible verdicts are obtained. Here are
some cases which do not show trial
by jury in the brightest light:
A provision dealer prosecuted a
man for stealing piece of con
out of his shop. The evidence was
simple and undisputed. 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 me through the glass,
did youl" asked the prisoner.
YES said the plaintiff.
"Well, then, must be let off.
You can't swear through glass"
Tho Judge, of course, made light
of this strange defense, but the jury
took the pr soner view and acquit-
ted him.
Baron Anderson once tried a civil
action, in shich 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 FL.
"Go home" exclaimed the Judge
savagely, land as you value ribs at
FL hope you viii get rorpo iiber"'
purchasers for your own on the
journey"
At Winchester in 1855 the same
judge tried some poachers. 1t was
noticed that the defending counsel,
the recorder of Portsmouth, chal,
lenged a great many of the panel,
SO that the jury was very slowly
constituted. There was no question
as to the evidence. The men ought
to have been convicted without II
moments hesitation. The jury.
however, acquitted them.
You see," said one of the jurors
afterward, 1--WE are all Portsmouth
men, and our recorder said one
thing and th9 other old judge on the
BENCH saiS another, and we thought
our recorder was most likely to be
right, 60 we let the men off. -
Church Family Newspaper.