The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-05
1Rv William Jennings Bryan.l

fury system from juror IFesH from lIS
service of his country. For five days OF
last week / served as a juror on the
regular PANEL OF the district court OF
Lancaster county. and ] may add mel
dentally. will draw from the county $1,000
for my services and 80 cents mileage tbe-
ing five cents for each full mile to ana
from the farm | was called on three
iuries, and having neither formed nor eX-
pressed an opinion upon the merits Oh
the cases. was each time accepted
word as to the method of selection
The law in Nebraska provides that each
side shall be allowed three peremptory
challenges In some places the attorney
are required to make their peremptoTy
challenges from among the twelve men
who are not subject to challenge Tor
cause and then new men are called 10
take their places in the box. In the as
trict court of Lancaster county, however,
the Judges have adopted a plan or calling
eighteen Jurors instead of twelve. II one
Is challenged for cause his place is filled
and when at last eighteen have been
uassed for cause each side strikes OIL
three. alternating in the striking, leav-
ing twelve Jurors to try the case. rms
has an advantage over the method some
times employed in that the peremptory
challenges are made after all have been
passed for cause, and thus each side can
strike off the three least acceptable. II
all the peremptory challenges are eXer-
cised and then the places filed, it may
be that the new jurors, though not sub
iect to challenge for cause, may be less
acceptable than men already challenged
he IN
in Lancaster county seems most likely
to secure a fair and impartial jury.
The first case tried before our jury was
a suit against an insurance company but
as the case turned upon the construction
Of the policy it was taken out OF the
hands of the jury and verdict given for
the defendant in pursuance of spectre
Instructions from the court.
The second case considered by the jury
upon which | served was an action
brought against the county by a person
who had suffered injury due. as he al
legged. to the negligence of the county
in the care of a public highway. The
evidence showed that the injury sustain
ed was small. The doctors bill was $500,
the horse was lame for a few days and
the buggy damaged, but not rendered
useless. There were three questions in
volved First, was the road properly
cared for and sufficiently safe for travel
ers exercising reasonable care; second,
was the plaintiff guilty of any act of neg
,ieence that "approxfmately, as the
court instructed contributed to the acct
dent: and, third, what was the amount
of the damage AS soon as the jury
reached the consultation room and
foreman was selected Git happened in this
case, as in the others, that ] was Sc
lected as fereman) a vote was taken
first upon the proposition, Shall the YER
diet be for the plaintiff or defendant
Upon this ballot it was found that na
iority favored q verdict for the de-
PENDANT Then followed a discussion OF
the merits of the case, each juror giving
his reason for voting as he did. and this
discussion was exceedingly interesting
because it showed the various points OF
view from which twelve unbiased mon
could look at the testimony 1t soon de-
welcomed that some of those who voted
for the defendant believed that the road
was not properly cared for, but that the
injury was so small that the plaintiff
should have no considerable award. and
as no one felt that the injury was SUI
ficient to justify more than nominal dam
ages. the jury finally agreed to verdict
of So This was a compromise verdict
and was accepted by all as doing sub
stantial Justice both to the county and
the plaintiff While the decision of
case in the district court is not consider
ed as establishing a legal precedent bind
ing upon other courts it may be worth
while to say that the negligence COM
planned of consisted in the county's main
tanning a road only thirty-twe feet iii
width. (the usual width is sixty-siX feet).
around the bank of a creek Ca deviation
from the section line) with nothing to
protect travellers from falling over the
bank and into the creek bottom some
eight feet below The plaintiff having oc
casion to pass there on a dark night
went over the bank and suffered tue in
juries complained of.
The third case was a replevin suit, ap-
pealed from the Justice court, and involv-
ed the title and right to possession of
about four tons of wild hay. III this case
the evidence showed that the plaintiff OBJ
tainel a lease to so acres of land which
included about acres of hay land, the
land belonging to & young woman whose
the business for her. The mother made
a verbal agreement in regard to the
renting of the land with the expectation
that lease would afterwards be drawn
up and signed. After the plaintiff had
gone into possession under this verbal
agreement the lease was presented by the
defendant in the case, the brother of the
young lady who owned the land. When
the tenant read over the lease he noticed
that the hay land was not specifically
mentioned and wanted to insert clause
in the case, but the defendant objected,
and upon this point there was difference
in the testimony the plaintiff testifying
that the defendant said that the hay
land was included and that there would
be no trouble about it, and the defend
ant denying the statement. The evidence
showed. however that the plaintiff oh
tanned a mower from the defendant and
moved a part of the hay, but that owing
to the wet season the hay was spoiled
The defendant afterwards went in ana
cut the remainder of the hay claiming
that he did so to protect his sister .
rights and that he did so with her ac-
quiescenee. although he testified that she