Morris tribune., 1897-12-15
JURlEs AND THEIR vERDlCTS.
In Former Times Agreement Was Com
pelled-Some Amusing Returns.


In Former Times Agreement Was Com
pelled-Some Amusing Returns.
1t used TO be the practice to starve
Ssagreeing jurymen into agree
ment. At the conclusion of 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 time
it was discovered that a 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 - shil-
hngs 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 a motion made or
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 a reasona-
BILE amount of deliberation, but they
found that his lordship had gone
out to see an affray. They there
fore returned to their room to await
his return and thought they were
doing no wrong in taking little
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 admit, but we must not blame
the honest man too much. The de-
bilitating effects of long wrangle
between Tweedledum, @. c., and
Tweedledee, @. c., followed by
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 SEN
sible verdiots 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 bacon
out of his shop. The evidence was
simple and undisputed. The prose-
cutor, sitting in little back parlor
with a 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 you2" 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 civil
action, in which 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, and as you value ribs at
81 l hope you will get some liberal
purchasers for your own on the
journey.
At Winchester in 1856 the same
judge tried some poachers. It was
noticed that the defending counsel,
the recorder of Portsmouth, chal-
lenged great many of the panel,
so that the jury was very slowly
There was no question
as to the evidence. 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 other old judgeon the
bench said another, and we thought
our recorder was most likely to be
right, so we let the men off. y
Church Family Newspaper.