The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1898-03-22
.TRY SYSTEM THE BEST
Judge Douglas Defends 1t III al
Opinion by Supreme Court.

.Judge Douglas Defends it IN an
Opinion by Supreme Court.
In the case of Cable vs. Southern
Railway. declued yesterday by the Su-
preme court. Judge Douglas has his
to say touching the jury system ana
the growing custom among certain
Judges in this State Of taking cases out
Of the hands of the jury:
This court does not favor the grow
ing practice Of taking cases from the
jury. The jury is Il constitutional
body. as much so as the court itself,
and. in the exercise Of ats peculiar
powers, of equal responsibility ana III
dependence. Its members are selected
on account Of their peculiar ftness from
the body of the people and by the law
full officers OF the people. ANY OF us
member can be challenged by any
party for cause, and to a certain extent
peremptorily at the will Of the objector.
They represent the average intelli-
gence and virtue Of our people, and we
cannot discredit them without at the
same time rejecting upon he controlling
element of our State. They may not
possess the high order of intelligence
and cultivation required of the judge,
but as an average they do possess the
common sense which gives a clearer in
sight into the motives and conduct of
men. and is better fitted to deal with
the ordinary affairs of life than the
highest order Of intellectual b~rilliancy.
We should remember that our organic
law is not the product Of John Locke.
but is the outgroWth of the practical
wisdom Of the hardy frontiersmen for
whom he attempted il vain to legls-
late. The number of the jury is large,
a,,J +Ioy arn ra1uiral ia rpp1pr n
unanimous verdict. because it is the
consensus of their average judgment
that the law seeks as the safest prOtec-
ton against prejudice and oppression.
1T is true that some of the advanced
thinkers of the day attack the jury
system as a cumbersome relic of the
ignorance Of the past; but in spite of
their criticisms it is not only imbeddeu
in our organic law. but remains of the
very warp and woof of the Jurisprudence
Of the two great English-speaking ma
tons who to-day hold the world in awe.
In the large majority of cases where
the court directs the verdict, if the mat
ter were left to them under proper in
structions, the jury would render q
verdict in accordance with the views of
the court, and that would be the end
of the case. But even if the jury should
rende Il verdict against the weight Of
the evidence, no harm would be done
beyond a brief delay. as the court could,
in its discretion, set aside any verdict
other than that of acQulttal on Il
criminal charge. 1t would involve no
greater responsibility to set aside n YER
dict than to direct one, and it is Ger
taiuly more in accordance with the
policy of our laws to recOmmit the case
to Il jury rather than to take it entirely
from their consideration. Where there
is any reasonable doubt it is proper and
certainly safer to leave to the jury the
exclusive determination of the facts.
"1These vicws are not new to this
court either in principle or application.
but are again suggested by the ~increas-
ing number of such cases.
The above is part of the opinion hand
cd down in the case of Gable vs.. South
ern Rail ay-an action brought to re-
cover damages for personal injuries al
legged to have been caused by negligence
of the railroad. The plaintiff. NJ. l..
Gable, was carried. passed his desti-
nation. Benaja, Guilford county. and in
jnred stepping off the train while in mo-
ton. by direction of the conductor.
After the close IF the testimony the
court below refused all prayers for in
struction offered by the plaintiff and
stated that he would charge the jur,
that the plaintiff on his own TESTIMONY
WAS not entitled to %ecove w~hereupou
the plaintiff submitted to Il nOn4suf1
and appealed.
The Supreme court, Judge Dough-,
writing the opinion, says that in doing
this the court erred: that the evidence
was sufficient to so to the jury; and {
new trial is ordered.