Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1911-11-03
Faulty Law Administration

There were twelve tribes OF Israel.
twelve apostles, twelve signs OF the
Zodiac, and there are twelve jurors
in the law courts OF record. 1t is
difficult to state al this particular
time inst why jurists conceived that
there VAS or is d charm in the num-
her twelve This institution has
ben handed down through many
generations, when considering its
age, the changes made with regard
IL the system are slight.
Undoubtedly with its defects, sim
lar TO all human institutions, it has
served good purpose in assisting
courts to solve issues Of fact, who
often assert these questions have
been settled by the jury on con-
iiict Of evidence, and therefore they
" II allow the verdict to stand. Lord
Mansfield, an eminent Judge OF Eng
land. in the eighteenth century.
stated il the power did not rest
with the courts to grant new trials
in given instances, this institution
would not have endured one year.
1t is unquestioned that in the past
history of Jurisprudence. also in the
present time. there have been and
are likely to be in the future, per-
verse verdicts that are not only con-
trary to the weight of evidence, but
are directly in opposition to the
testimony. An illustration is pre-
sented by a case tried before an In
diana court and jury, about eighteen
years ago. A man endeavored to
recover tract of land of an unpopu-
lar neighbor, to which the former
had no right, but nevertheless Oh
tanned verdict, which the Judge
promptly set aside, observing that it
took thirteen men in his court to
steal mans farm.
The STANDARD does not contend
that it is necessary to 60 beyond the
boundaries Of this State, perhaps not
outside of this county to find in
stances Of perverse verdicts, but the
instance above given affords forci-
BILE illustration Of the point for which
we contend. Jury trials are expen-
sive In this State, and courts are
cautious about setting jury verdicts
aside. Still judges may err in the
Interpretation of the law as well as
juries in passing upon questions Of
f..ct.
Some times. the members of jury
disagree, then the case must be tried
q second time, and perhaps a third.
In civil cases, tried before the Su-
perior Court in Washington, ten
jurors may render the verdict, but
in criminal prosecutions the verdict
must be unanimous, no matter how
trivial the charge. This feature is
fraught with injustice. because one
man who may have a beclouded mind
or from selfish motives cause mis-.
carriage in the administration of jus.
tice. Suppose q man is arrested for
hunting game out Of season. tried be.
fore justice and q jury Of six per.
sons, q verdict of guilty is given, he
appeals 70 the Superior Court; there
tried before a jury Of twelve, one
juror fails to see the facts Al
they appear to his co-jurors, 9
hurry jury Is the result. Moreover,
this man has had the benefit OF two
trials in the two courts. before eigh'
teen jurors, while had be been ar.
raigned for burglary or murder his
case would have been considered BY
twelve jurors.
OF course it is easy to assert that
IN these minor cases there should be
no right Of appeal. but it is . differ
ent matter when an attempt is made
to get Attorneys to agree on even Z
trivial change as to the method OIL
procedure in the courts. The law,
yers Of Washington can effect the
change If they will; but are always
conservative. il such is the proper
term to use in this connection; they
dislike innovation more than they dc
novation."