The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-06-14
CORRUPTING THE JURY.

had reached the point where all of the
evidence on both sides had been con-
cluded. The judge had notified the coun-
sci that taking the evidence in the most
favorable light for the defendant that he
would have to instruct the jury that the
plaintiffs son had been killed by the neg
ligence of the defendant, and that the de-
ceased was not guilty of any negligence
that the only question was the question
of assessment ofsdamages. After this in
timation of the court and after the court
late in the evening that one R. A. Ram
sey was trying to fix juror for the rail-
road. A little later it was found that
]. A. Gorham, the law agent of the rail
road, who had been associated with Col.
w. A. Henderson, of Washington, chief
counsel of the Southern Railway, and the
other lawyers appearing for the defend
ant during the whole trial and inside of
the bar, was having close conversations
at a late hour at night with one of the
iurymen, ]. H. Brown. The court had ex-
acted a promise of every member of the
jury that he should not speak to any one
about the case, or allow any one to speak
any person connected with the case for
plaintiff or defendant. Every one ofathe
jurymen made this promise to the Judge
in open court. When it was seen that
the juror, ]. H. Brown, was talking to
Gorham for several hours on Friday night,
and that Gorham left the juror for a
few moments and went to private place
and had conversation with one of the
counsel of the defendant L. c. Caldwell,
and that Gorham afterwards returned and
got with the juror again and stayed with
him until the guests about the hotel had
all retired, a watch was put upon these
men. They separated-kept apart under
suspicious circumstances a short while
and then Brown, who was a countryman
and not a guest of the hotel went to the
to the third story of the hotel by Gorham
and taken into his bedroom and kept in
there all night. The judge found as a
fact that Ramsey was on the grounds
for the express purpose of trying to cor
rupt juror and had tried to corrupt a
juror. He found that Gorham had cor
,,,tad i,,ror prouyn q nd that iurop pt.oTu-,
and Gorham had expressly violated the
order of the court and he sentenced Ram
sey, Gorham and Brown to jail and to
pay a fine. Lawyer Henderson, for the
railroad, upon the return of the rule for
contempt, stated that this case was the
only one against the railroad along the
following up and appearing in. He also
stated that there was a great deal of feel
ing in this case, but he did not say
whether he was the person who had the
feeling, or who he was. He also stated
that there was no warrant for money that
could be paid out by Law Agent Gorham
without his approval.
1t has been observed generally that this
is the first instance in the conduct of
railroad suits, or any other suits in this
part of the country where persons who
were corrupting, or bribng jurors were
actually caught. 1t is doubted whether
the enormity of the offense is fully APP
preciated If one or two men on a jury
can be corrupted. it does not matter how
honorable and just the balance of the jury
may be. the one or two corrupt men
can poison the very fountains of Justice
There are many interesting questions be-
ing raised about this matter. One is
this: The case had reached point where
Mr.. Long was entitled to verdict. He
was prevented from getting it, as the
judge found, because juror had been cor
rurted by the law agent of the railroad
This necessitates a new trial. The case
had been tried once before and verdict
held up by two jurors Is there any
remedy for such things as this?
1t seems the judge fined and imprisoned
these men for twenty days. Is there any
other punishment? The lawyers say that
they are indictable and can be punished
by indictment besides the punishment in
fiicted by the judge for contempt The
limit of the judges punishment for con-
tempt was thirty days in Jail and $3.50
fine.
The nature OF the indictment would be
for what the LAWYERS would call en-
bracery or bribery. 1t is said that this
offense, however, will hereafter be known
by different name-it will not be called
tampering with the juror but it will prob
ably be called "Gorhamizing the jury. I"
One of the leading papers of the State
has said that it would be very interesting
to know whether Gorham was acting ON
his own hook, or whether he was acting
from higher authority. This is a very
interesting question. 1t seems that since
his conviction that Mr.. Gorham has sent
in his resignation to his superiors in the
Law Department of the Southern Railway