The Owosso times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1897-1926, 1898-03-11
JUDGE SMITH TO THE JURY.
Confined from page ~

neho, Jul certainly the court would not
allow, over an objection, question that
had not legitimate purpose.
After they have examined you upon
your qualifications, finding out whether
yeu have expressed any opinion ON the
case, or whether you know or have heard
anything about the facts that would dis
qualify you to sit as juror, they will
challenge you, and the Court is called
upon to pass upon it. After they have
exhausted the challenges for cause, then
the attorneys have right in civil cases,
to peremptorily challenge four jurors
without giving any reason. That is
right given by the law; and in criminal
cases the defense has right to peremp-
torily challenge five, except in cases of
murder, where the defense has right to
challenge thirty jurors without giving
any reason.
In great many instances l have
known jurors to be most seriously offend
ed because of being peremptorily chal-
lenged. They become offended at the at
torneys. Jurors should not do this. 1t
is right the law gives them, and the at.
torney should have no reason to fear that
any juror should be offended because he
is peremptorily challenged from the pan.
el.
After you have been here for time,
my opinion Is you will rather like it.
Jurors will ask themselves, "Why did he
challenge me off from there, does he
think l don't know anything, or does he
think l am dishonest" 1 have had jur-
ors, notably one, for instance, who had
been friend of mine, that became Bit
ter enemy of mine for life because I chal-
lenged him peremptory. Of course, at
torneys don't like to have that feeling,
but they must discharge their duty to
their clients. l speak of this so no of.
Tense may exist on the part of any of the
jurors who may be challenged perempto-
rily. As say, after you have been here
awhile and find what work you have got
to 60 through with, it will not be as
much of pleasure trip as you think it
will be, and you will rather like to be
challenged off the jury.
The discharge of this high duty is the
duty of reason; it is the duty of thought.
If one of you gentlemen are farmers and
you propose to build barn, you get the
means together, get the men to work,
and you make it move. Many of you
have dictated on your farms or in your
business-youhave ruled, in fact, supreme
for years there, and of all men in my ex-
perience, take them as an average, that
are quite set in their opinions when it
comes to reasoning matters, are you farm
ers. You have watched your broad acres,
this field has been plowed at your direc-
ton and dictation; it has been sown and
cultivated at your direction and dictation
with no one to dispute or control, until
you become in measure in your dis
position-it is naturally so-somewhat
inclined to be little arbitrary about it.
Now, gentlemen, such a disposition
would not do in the discharge of your
duties as jurors. As said before, it is
matter of right reason applied to the evil
dence and the law in the case. 1t is not
matter of stubbornness. 1t is not
matter where the jury should 60 in the
jury room and say, "Those are my fig
ures and you have got to accept them or
I'll stay here until the maggots carry me
out of the keyhole." That man, who
says that, is not on the right track as a
juror. If there is one of the eleven who
cannot agree with the others he should
ask himself candidly, Can these other
men who are equally conscientious men,
men who have equal ability, men who
are supposed to be acting conscientiously
uader the same oath that am acting un-
der, be wrong?" While every man has
right to his opinion, yet he should stop
and ask himself whether or not there
might not be some mistake in his posi-
ton, and be open to reason, open to dis
cussion, open to argument-kindly argu-
ment, not obstreperous argument, but
kindly argument. No man should rem.
der verdict against his conscience, but
he should reason it out. Don't go in the
jury room, as a certain man on jury in
justice court, who was good German.
He says, "Well, boys, what you say, l go
mid the crowd of up" We have to act
as we are obliged to act. Many times l
have to decide cases where it pains me to
decide; where it would seem that equity
and justice were the other way, but the
law says must decide that way. Many
times have been obliged to impose sem
fences in criminal cases where it was very
hard, but it was from sense of duty; it
must be done. We must follow the la W
You are to judge of matters OF fact The
Court has no business to say word
about that. You are to determine every
question of fact. and YOU are to follow