Tonopah bonanza. [volume] (Butler City [i.e. Butler], Nev.) 1901-1909, 1907-06-08

lows and TO consider their views to the
end that each may aid at arriving az
the truth. Ultimately OF course, eacn
tons, but this is what his oath en-
joins him to do. Reliance must neces-
sarily be placed upon the honor ana m
telligence of jurymen and 1t may pe,
we think, be left to the sound discre-
ton Of the trial Judge whether or not,
after he has given the jury general
instructions covering their aqIiss, ~ az
juror his particular duty and obliga-
ton, and if given, the INSTRUCTION
should be modified in accordance with
the views herein expressed.
The supreme court of California, IN
a comparatively recent case, refused
to reverse where this instruction was
refused, holding that the jury was sum
ciently instructed as to its duties n
other general instructions. The court
| commented upon the instruction In
question as follows: !,
"Appellant contends that the refusal
to give this instruction was error JUST
flying a reversal, and relies upon Peo-
pie VS.. Doyle, 1872 Cal. 486, In support
of his contention. The court there says
that the instruction correctly stated the
duty of a Juror and SHOULD have been
given, but adds, If my juror needed an
instruction upon this point, 1t was
harmful to refuse 1t; IL no juror needed
harmless to give it, But that case was
not reversed solely or principally upon
the refusal to give that instruction, but
mainly upon other errors OF the trlai
court referred to in the opinion in that
case. In the latter case of People VS.
Rodley, 131 Cal. 259, this court says
on his subject: "Juries are empanelec
for the p of agreeing upon YER
diets il they can conscientiously do so
The are admonished at each recess OF
the court not to form an opinion as &c
the merits of the case until IT shall bt
finally submitted to them, and when i
is submitted it is the duty Of Jurors
to deliberate and consult together will
the view of reaching an agreement. 1
they can without violence 70 their IN
dividual understanding of the evidence
and instructions of the court. They
should not be lectured by the court Z
make them strong and steadfast II
their individual opinions helthe
should they be eXhorted to reach al
agreement, and while Ii is probabl.
true that 'each juror should decide tn
matter for himself yet he should DO 81
only after a consideration of the cas-
with his fellow Jurors, and he shoul'
not hesitate to sacrifice his views o
the case when convinced that they ar
erroneous, even though In so doing j
defer to the views or opinions OF oth
: ers.' people VS.. Perry, l44 Cal 745.)
The supreme court of Montana dis
/ GUESSING this same instruction in stat
r VS.. Hurst. % Mont 1875, said: -,
= "An examination OF the record In thl
[ case shows that the court carefully in
0 structed the jury as to their duties !
it's instructions Nos. 3, IL, II and 81
t We agree that the instructions as ASH
ed Is a correct statement of the la
e as to the duty of a juror, but we ais
think that the general instructions sur
mitted In this case We're amply sun
: cient to guide the individual jurors !
= the performance Of their duties undo
$ the law. The court had heard the N
e diVidual Jurors examined. 1t had wit
$ messed their behavior during the Pre-
l. gress of the trial. IL was discrettonar
with the court to instruct the jul
= more specifically with reference to the
individual duties, the exercise of III
discretion to be determined by the OF
servations made by the court durin
the examination OF the jurors and the
a conduct during the trial. IL the cout
2 il was not abuse Of discretion to glN
a 1t. There is some conflict of authoril
as to whether the court should instru'
the jury in matters of this kind. W
agree in the main with what the 81
preme court of Iowa said on the SUI
~ ject of such instructions in state v
Hamilton, 81 Iowa, $3.50. II n. w. .; (
course each juror Is to act in his oW
~ Judgment. He Is not required to su
render his convictions unless convince
IL He may be aided by his fellow juro
\, to find a verdict against his judgme'
merely because the others enterta
,,e views different from his own. But
jury need not be advised of so simp
'y a proposition. The usual method
4, instructing upon the measure of pro
required In criminal cases Is sut
j., Gent" To the same effect is sta
70 VS.. Howell, &c Mont. G..
n Continued on Page 30