The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-24

(and were as erroneous as) the office
holding cases of that court which were
promptly and speedily reversed by the
present court. The bar and the pupllc
thought the Kilgo and Duke decisions
would be reversed as promptly. In
the office holding cases the office-hold-
er was given power and rights superior
to the public. In the present dog
fall, two Judges deny trial by jury
because they think there is no evil
dence. In both instances the right OF
the public and trial by jury are sacrl-
feed as we see it. to the office-holders
right and the richt of judges to pass
upon questions that a/jury should de-
termine.
Justice Brown says that if he thinks
there is no evidence it is his duty to-
hold that the case shall not go to
Jury. Does not this imply judicial in
fallibilitX? Heretofore the furthest
that the EXTREMIST advocate of the
Judge can do no wrong" theory has
gone has been to say that the case
of evidence is such that mo two
reasonable men can draw different
conclusions" In this very case two
Supreme Court Justices came to the
conclusion that the case should go
to the Jury. and two Justices (not
their superiors in wisdom) reached
the conclusion that it ought not to go
i
to a jury! Ought citizen to be de-
prived of his constitutional guaran-
tee of trial by jury upon such state
of facts as this? The doubt ought to
be resolved in favor of trial by jury.
1t ought never to be denied in any
case except one so plain that no two
reasonable men can differ about it,
The Supreme Court of North Caro-
lima ought now to reconsider and let
this poor man, who has for half
dozen or more years fought for a
chance 20 vindicate his good name
against tremendous odds (including
bribery of jurors) have his day in
court. and the wrongs of which he
complains passed upon by twelve meh
in the old fashioned trial by jury. Let
it not be said in North Carolina that
with an evenly divided Supreme Court
an aged and infirm minister of the
gospel. was denied a jury trial when
as many Judges held he was entitled
to it as held the other way. 1t is bet
ter an HUNDRED times that this man,
who has asked for hearing of his
grievances. should be given a chance
to vindicate his good name than that
the many should feel he has been de-
MED it when there has been such
grave doubt as caused the court to
evenly divide. Two Supreme Court
Judges say there is evidence to go
to a jury: two Superior Court Judges
have said the same thing; the fusion
Supreme Court did not go so far as TO
say there was no evidence; twenty
four intelligent Jurors say there is
sufficient evidence to justify verdict,
for damages. OF the more than thirty
honorable men who have heard this
case all but three say there is evil
dence. and of the three, the Superior
Court Judge SO held. not because he
personally thought so. but because he
felt bound by Justice Montgomery
opinion.
All this shows that preponderance
of judicial opinion and unanimous
agreement of lay opinion believes
there is evidence to go to jury. And,
yet, because three honorable judges
disagree with all the others. equally
able and equally honorable, is a jury
trial to determine the merits of this
noted controversy, to be- denied to
Mr.. Gattis? Men and brethren.
ought not the doubt to be resolved in
favor of this poor man who has been
Naging an unequal contest for vindica-
ton at the hands of a jury of his
countrymen?
This paper would mott could not
-assail the two eminent justices who
nave held with the defendants. We
freely accord to them honesty and
ability. But this is matter above
men. 1t is matter which affects
every man now living in North Car
DINA If Mr.. Gattis can be deprived
of a jury trial upon such a showing,
with an evenly divided court, what has
become of the sacred right of trial
by jury? The judges may honestly
think they can find facts better than
4 jury, but the wisdom of the ages is
against that view. All free countries
put their faith in trial by jury. The
fact itself whether there is or is not
evidence becomes disputed fact
when two judges hold one way, two
judges hold the other way, and thirty
other good men have held there was
evidence. That very question thus
becomes one of fact, not of law, and
should go to the jury.
We print Judge Browns statement
with pleasure. We have no criticism
of him or any other judicial officer.
He should know that judges are falli-
BILE like other men, and that, with an
evenly divided court, and thirty pre-
ceding judges and jurors against
him, he may be wrong. He ought to
be, and we hope he is, big enough and