The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-04-05
A DRUNKEN JUROR
Because He Was Unable to Sit, Mis-,
trial Was Ordered and When De-
PENDANT in Murder Case Was
Convicted He Appealed as
Having Already Been
''in Jeopardy

|
Few were of any general interest and
several went off on per curtain opin-
ions, the terms meaning that the cases
had been so often decided OH the
points presented that mere general
reference was necessary for the rea-
sons of the courts decisions.
In two cases the old rule in Shell
ly's case" figured in the decisions. it
seeming that neither the litigants nor
that ancient doctrine in the broad
sense in which it has been ennunciatad
| by frequent decisions of the court. The
rule in Shelly's case is simply that the
| word heirs means an absolute con-
VeyaIice Notwithstanding any terms
that might be equivocal or tend to
| limit the conveyance in the absence of
| that word. In both cases the rule was
sustained, as usual. The constant and
repeated assaults on the Shelly case
are as persistent and uninterrupted
| as those which resulted in the final
downfall of Hoke VS., Henderson. al
! though the last named rested neither
| on so firm foundation of precedent
nor respect as the former.
'RuIe in ShelIy's Case"
In Tyson VS.. Sinclair from Mobre.
| the question arose upon contract for
| sale of land, where specific perform
| ancc was asked, and the point at issue
was the construction of a will made
! by Thomas b. Tyson in which he said
Il give and devise to my grandson
Thomas Il. Tyson. my store house and
| lot i'm the town of Carthage. adjoin-
| ing the public square and opposite
my dwelling house. with all the build
ings thereon situated. during the term
of his natural life. then to the lawful
heirs of his body in fee-simple, on
| failing of such lawful heirs of his
body, then to his right heirs in fee. -
The court upheld the rule in Shell
| ly's case in deciding that the grand
son Tyson was entitled to a fee-simple
| in the land under the will notwith-
standing the attempt apparently ut
! Limitation contained in the phrases
heirs of his BODY : right heirs" etc.
The case of Thompson VS.. Crump
also went off on a question involving
the rule in Shclly's case.
Complications From Drunken Juror
The case of State VS.. Tyson from
State on a peculiar state OF facts. 1t
seems that the defendant. who was
| finally convicted of murder in the
second degree, had been twice on trial,
the first trial having come to an end
| by reason of one of the jury sitting
on the case having become so drunk
that the judge stopped the trial.
The first case WAS heard before
Judge Bryan and the second before
| Judge PEBBLES, who refused to sustain
the plea which was made by defend
ants counsel that he had been before
placed in Jeopardy" by reason of his
| trial having been heretofore COM
mcnced before a competent court.
Says the record: THE prisoner was
placed on trial under the same bill
| of indictment at April term before
Judge Bryan, who discharged the jury
after four and half days on account
of a drunken juror. After the evil
dence was closed and pending argu-
ment. it was discovered that one of
the jurors, one Covington. had with
out authority or knowledge of the
court or it's officers gone to his home
and procured a quantity of liquor and
was in a grossly intoxicated condition
| on Friday night; that he had been
drinking secretly all during the trial;
! that on Saturday. the last day of the
term, the said juror was in q very
nervous and besotted condition and
unfit for duty and that unaVailing eff
| forts were made to render him fit.
| Whereupon the court discharged the
jury and ordered 81 mistrial"
On the facts the court held that
while a man could be put in jeopardy
| q second time only in cases of neces-
| sity and that it was the duty Of the
court to set out in appeal the full facts
and reasons for the ordering of a new
trial, the facts in the case were such
| as to leave him no other course and
| the motion for a dismissal of the
charge was therefore properly over
ruled by Judge PEBBLES.
! In concluding its opinion the court
said
"The fact that the incapacity and
illness of the juror were brought about
by his own gross misconduct makes nc
| difference; SO far as the interests of ius.
tice are concerned the result is the
| same
eff we adopted the contention of the
prisoner in this case, it would be with.
! in the power Of drunken Juror t.
entirely defeat the ends of Justice il
he could get LIQUOR enough to con-
! tinue his intoxication The court is ir
no way responsible or it's officers 81
| far as we can sec. for the deplorable
| condition of the Juror There was
nothing else Ills Honor could do ex.
cept declare the facts and discharge
the jury
The record in this case, however
fails to disclose the feature that hai
about it the strongest heart interest.
What was the fate Of the juror who's,
| nervousness over his jag" caused thu
dismissal of jury that had becen 70
four and a half days listening to tn,
| mixed evidence of a. murder trial, tn,
direct and indirect examinations o
counsel, the objections to evidence an
/ the thousand and one technicalitie
which make a session on a jury
nightmare to the citizen of the squar
| toed shoes and the plain tongue in hi
head that is worse than the contem
| plation Of freeze in April? VIVA
the suffering eleven who staid per
force in the room with this deceitfu
wretch of a iIryman who was 50 evi
| IDENTIFY full to the neck of q satisfying
brand of booze and who yet. accordin,
to the record, was so inconsiderate a.