The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-09

that there would be no appeal from the diScretionafs action of the judge? Mir. Watts4-Yes, think the Legislat- ure would prescribe rules for the dis charge of juries and if the judge foi- lowed the rules and discharged the Jury his action would be affirmed, but don't think the Legislature would pre- scribe that there should not be an ap- peal from the action of the judge m any matter that came before him. Now as to the point of my friend from Pickens that the latter part of the clause Is dangerous. I think he misin- terprets that. It is not, ss he seeems to construe 1t. that anybody shall be de- prived of . right by the discharge of this jury. but the language is that no one shall gain any advantage by the discharge of the jury that b, the action of the judge shall not benefit the plain tiff or defendant, but that the case shall 90 on and be tried again and the judge shall not discharge the jury.
 Mr. O'Neal-Under this provision the Legislature could provide that the judge could discharge the jury upon the request of six as suggested by the gentleman from Montgomery?
 Mr. watts-Certainly.
 Mr. CNeai--And that against the protest of the defendant?
 MT. Watts-Yes.
 Mir. o'Neal-Do you think that safe provision?
 MT. Watts-Yes: I thing the Legis- lature could prescribe that the judge could discharge the jury in the event of the happening of a certain event--for instance. after 1t has been out 24 hours. or a turyman takes sick. or juror called from the jury room by necessity. The idea is to prevent setting up in subsequent trial the fact that the jury was discharged in accordance with the forms prescribed by law
 Mir. Lomax--As stated by the gentle man from Montgomery MT. Watts. the sole purpose of this amendment to the bill of rights Is to enable the Legls- lature to fix certain rules which shall govern judges in discharging jures, and to provide that when judge act ing under the rules prescribed by law does discharge a jury that the defen- dArlt nor the State can take any ad-. vantage of that discharge, but that the case go on and be tried de novo. Now the matter as suggested by my friend from Montgomery. (Mr Jones) was purely a matter ofyLegislative de- tail, but so far as am concerned, in my practice of the law. have never yet seen a jury come out and say. six of us want to be discharged. or five of us want to De discharged. but invaria- ply come out after considering the case and say to the court that they ask to be discharged because 1t Is impossible to agree on a verdict. Now, under the operation of the law n some coun- ties of the State. notably in this county. in Mobile and Jefferson county, juror can be kept in that court three solid months considering a verdict where 1t Is impossible for them to agree. Now that power ought not to be in the hands of anybody, that is 6 power of condemning the jury to hard labor for the county just as much as if they went to the coal mines. That don't in- terfere with any right of the defen- dant. except his right to sit there and refuse to permit men who have given a fair, a just and an earnest considera- ton to his case. who are unable to agree. to be discharged, to prevent him from keeping those men there an in- terminable length of time. and we do not put in it in the discretion of the judge. but say the Legislature, the General Assembly shall fix the rule which shall govern the judges in the exercise of their power. Now if the JaABCS OVCaStGt bAVUC NutVos tHc uCICH= dant has his right to appeal as he had before.
 Mir. weatherly--Could not the Legis- lature under that leave 1t to the judg- ment of the judge7
 Mr. Lomax--I think not, because the section expressly says that he shall have the right to do it for reasons fixed by law. and consequently the Legisla- ture would have to fix reasons for the judge to act upon.
 Mir. Pettus--Do you object to this amendment: Insert after the word ease" in line three after jury has had a case twenty-four hours, and a majority report that they cannot reach a verdict
 Mir. Lomax--Yes. I object to 1t, be- cause 1t is purely a matter of legisla- tive detail and has no business in the Constitution.
 think gentlemen. we ought not 10 insert in the Bill of Rights of the Con- stitution any matters of Legislative these propositions made in reference to this section are simple matters of detail under the provisions of the Constitu- tioral enactment which we propose. It can work no harm to anybody, 1t simply makes teh defendant go through another trial and that Is all without taking away a. single right. 1t enables juries to be discharged that ought to be discharged, and the section ought to be adopted in my judgment. I move MT. President. that the mo- tior to reconsider be laid upon the table.
 A division was called for on the to lay on the table.
 Mir. Reeee-On that call for the ayes and noes.
 The call for the ayes and noes was not sustained.
 Mfr Reese-1 make the point of order | that a motion to reconsider cannot be | laid upon the table.
 The President-Does the gentleman | refer to a rule?
 MT. Reese-Yes. to Rule No. 27.
 The President-The point of order is | overruled.
 Al vote being taken the motion to | reconsider was laid upon the table by | 52 ayes to 37 nays on division.
 The President-When the Convention | adjourned on Saturday, 1t had under | the minority report on | Section 12. and the gentleman from | Dallas sent up an amendment which | was not read as the time for adojurn- | mept had arrived
 MT. Burns-I ask unanimous consent | to withdraw the amendment.
 The President-The Chair hears no | objection.
 The question Is on the adoption of | Lhe minority report on Section 12. that | n civil actions three -fourthS of -the | lurv may render A vArdicf