The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-04-07
(By william Jennings Bryan.)

The readers OF Inc tonluloh'I may Ct
! interested in some comments upon tue
Jury system from q juror fresh from the
service OF his country. For five days OF
last week l served as a juror on the
regular PANEL OF the district court al
Lancaster county. and / may add. incl
deDtally. viii draw from the county $1,000
for nv services and 30 cents mileage toe-
ing FIVE cents for each full mile to and
| from the farm ! was called on three
| turies, and having neither formed nor ex-
! dressed an opinion upon the merits OF
the cases. was each time accepted.
word as TO the method Of selection
The law in Nebraska provides that each
side shall To allowed three peremptory
challenges. In some places the attorney
| are required to make their peremptory
challenges from among the twelve men
who are not subject 10 challenge Tor
cause and then new men are called 10
| a K their places in the box In the dis
| trict court OF Lancaster county, however.
the Judges have adopted a plan OF calling
eighteen jurors instead of twelve. II enc
is challenged for cause his place Is flted
ana when at last eighteen have been
| PASSED for cause each side strikes Oh
three, alternating in the striking. leav-
! ing twelve Jurors 10 liz liz - Ahi@
| has an advantage over the method some
times employed in that the ~perenptory
challenges are made after all have been
PASSED for cause, and thus each side can
strike off the three least acceptable. II
| all the percmptory challenges are exer-
| cised and then the places filled. it may
| be that the new jurors, though not sub
iect to challenge for cause, may be less
| acceptable than men already challenged.
In other words. the method now in vogue
in Lancaster county seems most lkeiy
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 a verdict given for
| the defendant in pursuance of specific
Instructions from the court.
The second case considered by the jury
upon which l 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
L uStItSS. ~ NS1S io1eN -
| 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
ligence that approximately" 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 a
foreman was selected Git happened in this
case, as in the others, that | was Sc
lected as foroman), a vote was taken
first upon the proposition, Shall the YER
dict be for the plaintiff or defendant
Upon this ballot it was found that a ma
icrity favored a verdict for the de-
fendant 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 men
could look at the testimony. 1t soon de-
veloped 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 nave no considerable award. and
as no one felt that the injury was suf-
fcient to justify more than nominal dam
ages, the jury finally agreed to a verdict
Of IS. This was 4 compromise verdict
and was accepted by all as doing sub
stantial justice both to the county and
the plaintiff. While the decision of u
case in the district court is not consider
ed as establishing q 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 q road only thirty-twe feet III
$500
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 &C
casion to pass there on a dark night
| went over the bank ard suffered the in
juries complained Of.
The third case was q replevin suit, ap-
pealed from the justice court, and involv-
ed the title and right to possession of
about four tons Of wild hay. In this case
the evidence showed that the plaintiff OBJ
tainel a lease TO so acres of land which
included about Z acres of hay land, the
land belonging to & young woman whose
mother was in the habit of attending to
the business for her. The mother made
a verbal agreement in regard to the
renting of the land with the expectation
that a 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 a clause
in the case, but the defendant objected,
and upon this point there was q 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 OBJ
tanned a mower from the defendant and
moved a part Of the hay. but that owing
TO he wet season the hay was spoiled.
The defendant afterwards went in and
cut the remainder Of the hay claiming
that he did so to protect his sisters
rights and that he did so with her ac-
quiescence, although he testified that she
had not expressly authorized him to cut