Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1901-05-21

faliacies in the argument of counsel,
is better able to arrive at an accurate
determination of the issues involved |
than is the man who has had no such
training. But he is not permitted to
find the facts; he can only tell the
jury what the law is, and if they find
so and SO their verdict must be so and |
so. The evidence may be without con-
flict or the facts admitted, yet If diff
ferent minds might honestly draw diff
ferent conclusions the Judge cannot
decide the case, but it must be sub
mitted to the jury of twelve, who
must be unanimous in their verdict
or it is mistrial.
Laws and Facts Disregarded.
1.-TWO instances occurred in this
county recently that serve to illustrate
the rule and show the utter disregard
that juries have for law and facts. A
jury retired to find verdict in case
between an individual and railroad
company involving the question of
damages by reason of delivering a
shipment of cattle at the wrong des-
tination. AS usual, the plaintiff de-
manded in his petition an amount far
in excess of anything he expected to
recover or could prove. This petition
was read to the jury. Plaintiff only
proved possible damage of less than
one-tenth of his demand. The court
charged the jury clearly that they
could only assess such damages as
plaintiff proved, if any. The jury con-
tanned number of intelligent business
men, yet they brought in a verdict for
all the plaintiff demanded in his petit
ton and in addition thereto the high
est possible sum that plaintiffs proof
tended to show was damages he had
sustained. The verdict had to be
changed by the judge to conform to
the law and evidence. In the other
case the jury retired to consider their
verdict in personal injury case
against corporation. The discus
sions of the jurors were overheard
| Most of them were in favor of giving
the plaintiff all he asked, not because
the defendant was to blame for the ac-
cident, as the jurors agreed that plain
tiff was injured through his own care.
lessness, but it was specifically urged
in the jury room that the defendant
was rich corporation and should be
made to pay the plaintiff. Others of
the jurors who opposed any verdict
for the plaintiff, finally agreed to a
small verdict because, as they stated,
it would be cheaper for the defendant
to pay it than to try the case again.
Judges Criticised.
4 another criticism is due the judges:
the administration of law is a solemn
and serious proceeding and ought to
4 be attended with decorum and dignity,
at least such as to inspire some show
Of respect for the court and the pro-
ceedlngs. In this state the practice is
for the trial judge to leave the bench
j. and the room where the jury are, af-
ter the evidence is in, for the purpose
of preparing the instructions, and our
4 supreme court says the practice is
i commendable, but it would seem that
the court loses sight of its duty to liti-
giants, ana it's duty to maintain the re-
spect it's proceedings are entitled to,
in so doing. Without the restraining
influence of the judge, attorneys in
their. arguments to the jury indulge in
all kinds of statements outside the rec.
ord and greatly prejudice the cause in
, the minds of the jury the proceedings
sometimes descend to the appearance
of common brawl. 1t is true that the
attorneys are, to blame, and such dis
honorable practice should not be ex
}, pected except from 1.-THE unprincipled
, shyster, or perhaps the inexperienced
!; practitioner who sometimes uncon
sciously wanders from the record in
his argument, and who usually makes
, amend if his attention is called to the
/ fact, but it is usually the old practi
toner who artfully injects into his ar
i gumeEt some highly prejudicial state
! ment that he dare not attempt in the
}, presence of the judge or reporter, and
! whose conduct in this respect ought tt
be punished by the court instead of en-
couraged."