The Goldfield news. [volume] (Goldfield, Nev.) 1904-1911, 1909-05-22

The opinion of Judge Theron Stevens
of the district court, in which he denies
the application of the Frances Mohawk
Mining & Leasing company for a new
trial of the case of the Goldfeld Mo-
hawk VS.. the Frances Mohawk Mining
& Leasing company, from the verdict
of the jury which rendered $4,000
damages to the plaintiff, is probably
ever filed in the district court, and con
tains much of interest relative to
the jury system in the trying of eases
at issue, treating impartially one of
the most argued points in legal prae-
tice, and it's benefits.
The opinion was rendered orally, in
court, on the day that a motion for a
new trial was denied, and in this re-
spect is a masterpiece because of the
thorough manner in which the various
points are covered. In speaking of the
case itself he says that it is a very i'm
p~ortant one, and in many respects a
peculiar one, and he is not surprised
that the defendant was dissatisfied with
the verdict, as a verdict of the kind
hardly results otherwise than as a sur
prise, and the defendant naturally feels
that justice has been outraged.
Judge Stevens further says: 81 have
had quite a long experience on the
bench, during which time / nave seen
many verdicts rendered which | re-
garded as an outrage upon justice, and
many which / felt ought to be set aside
in the interests of justice and fairness.
The jury system was instituted because
it was believed that a verdict by
twelve men would come nearer the sim
pie ideas of justice than any other
method. 1t has been tried for a great
many years, and the result has given
rise to a grave question in the minds
of many men as to whether it is the
best system that could be adopted for
adjusting differences between men and
organizations.
"A good many seem to think that the
jury system is a failure when it comes
to determining absolute rights, because
it is subject to be Influenced by mems
passions and prejudiees; some think
even justice might be done if all diff
ferences which arise might be left to
one Judge, or three judges, but you will
find the judges will disagree and be I'M
able to see the law or facts that are
represented, in the same way. 1t is
one of the weaknesses of human minds.
We don t think alike; we don't look at
things in the same way, and probably it
is a good thing that men and judges
don't see things alike. We are apt to
go wrong. BY my conception, the jury
system, and why it was originated ana
perpetuated for so many years, was for
the purpose of taking the power to
some extent away from the judges.
ssSome of the courts of last resort
have said that the trial judge should
have the power to set aside the verdict
of the jury if in his Judgment the pre-
ponderance of evidence was against
such a verdict. The exercise of such
discr ton surely would be substituting
the Judgment of the court in place of
that Of the jury, and if followed out in
it's logical sequence would result in the
overthrow of the jury system. could
never see why it was a just and proper
exercise of judicial discretion for the
trial judge to set aside the verdict of
the jury for the reason that, in the
mind of the judge, the evidence did not
Justify the verdict. If l could have
seen it that way there would have been
many verdicts in my experience that
would nave been set aside, because |
felt that justice had been outraged.
81 have set aside verdicts of Juries
where it has been shown that the jury
had been guilty of misconduct, which
showed that one or the other of the lit
igants had been ~prejudiced through the
improper conduct Of a juror; and in this