The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1897-02-02
judges to set aside the verdict of jurles

. judges to set aside the verdict of jurles
on questions of fact in civil cases.
The bill was taken up from the spe
cial order list and MIR. Ragsdale gained
the floor In its support. The commit,
tee had given his bill q black eye, but
he appealed from the committee to the
Senate on the merits of his measure
He said the bill did not seek to strir
the Judge of any OF his prerogatlves,
but 1t did propose to forbid his trespass
upon the province of the jury. This
authority OF the Judge to set aside q
verdict on questions OF fact was uncon-
stttutional and the act allowing 1t
should be repealed. That portion OF
the constitution forbidding the Judge to
charge upon the facts would be of no
avail IL after the verdict is rendered
the judge is to set aside the decree of
the jury on question of fact. Under
the present law verdict was set aside
and tho case went to the next Jury
prejudiced by verdict on it being set
aside by the previous Judge as wrong,
and on the case went, until the judges
opinion prevailed at last We might
as well do away with the jury alto
gether.
Mr.. Henderson said that the commit
tee had been unanimous in their ver-
dict He declared that there was no
such law in the United States as pro-
posed by the bill. BY abundant adiu-
dication established throughout the
history of this union the principle was
everywhere laid down that the Judge
has right to set aside the jury's ver-
dict, when 1t Is manifestly against the
| weight OF the evidence. Pass this bill
trk,, L.
jury may make In passion or otherwise,
there would be no means Of obtaining
lustlce for prosecuted litigant. The
| bill Was too far.reaching.
Mr.. Sloan spoke in favor of the un-
favorable report. This bill, in his
opinion, was the most dangerous and
unwise measure that had teen intro
duced into the Senate during his entire
seven years experience. 1t was
against the practice Of every civilized
government of the world.
Mr.. Dean saw no great danger in the
proposed bill, but, on the contrary, he
thought it was directly in line of the
progress and the spirit of the times
and tendency of Jurisprudence. RI the
Jurles, selected as they were, from
among the best citizens, were subject
to undue influences, it should be sup
posed that the judges we're liable to
the same influences. We should hew
to the line and the letter and spirit of
the constitutional provision that saws
In the matters OF fact the jury Is su-
preme. Let it be said that when twelve
good, lawful and representative mon,
who know the witnesses and are best
qualified to judge of their testimony,
that they alone shall be Judges of the
facts. The friends OF the measure did
not reflect upon the honor and purity
or the circuit judges, but it must be
SAID they are human and as liable to
err as jurors.
Mr.. Pettigrew, in reply to the argu-
ment that q jury Is often prejudiced,
urged that in such cases a change of
venue could be obtained, and the case
tried by an impartial jury in another
county. 1t was unreasonable to sup
pose that one man was better qualified
10 pass upon the fact than twelve honest
men, the peers of the person litigating.
Mr.. Mower said he had not heard of
any condition of affairs in this State
that called for the passing of this radi-
cal law. This bill proposed to say that
errors OF judges can be corrected, but
that those OF the jurors could not. If
the Jury commits an error through ig-
norance or other influence, the super
visory authority of the Judge should be
retained to correct them.
Mr.. Hay approved of the new consti-
tutional drovision which forbid the
Judge to state the evidence. He be-
iieyed i"Nes ari In trials by jury, and he was no
ro5e on man aId not make eslng him iodsa oiaos
nor yet lawyer. But he had no in
tention of rejecting on the circuit
judges OF this State. 1t had been his
experience that it was almost impos-
sible to get new trial from a Judge
when the jury had passed upon the
facts. Juries are leymen and are liza
BILE, though honestly 80, to make mis-
takes and misconstrue the facts. He
could not sec the wisdom in cutting off
all resources to appeal to the Supreme
Court or asking for nav trial, which
this measure proposed to do.
Mr.. Archer was OF the opinion that
whether verdicts should be rendered
by twelve men or thirteen men. For
his part, he preferred the thirteen.
Mr.. Mayfield spoke against the bill,
comparing the judge to locomotive
governor, who superintended and put a
check on the judicial machine when it
became unruly and ran to excess or
tailed to mete out exact Justice, and to
Mr.. Pettigrew's question what would
oe the use OF jury If they were not the
judges the of facts, replied by comparing
the judge to the head carpenter of q
building, who saw that the work was
properly constructed.
Mr. Ragsdale appealed for what he
considered the good principle in his
bill, and moved to indefinitely post
pone the uufavorable report. On this
motion the ayes and nays were called
for, and 1t was lost on vote OF q to 8,
as follows.
Aye.-Dean, Gaines, Mcdaniel, Nor
ris, O'Dell, Pettigrew, Ragsdale and
Williams-8.
Nays-Alexander, Archer, Brown,
Buist, Connor, Dennis, Douglass, Du-
Bose, Griffith, Hay, Henderson, Love,
Mauldin, Mayfield, McCalla, Miller,
Moses, Mower, Ragin, Sanders, Scar
borough, Sloan, Stackhouse, Talbird,
Turner, Walker and Wallace.-27.
Mr.. Mayfield then moved tae adop-
tion OF the unfavorabe report and re-
jectiOn OF the bill which was carried.
-aeb
THE ELECTION OF SENATOR.