Western Carolina Democrat and French Broad hustler. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1913-1915, 1914-08-06

en- up up without the accomplishment
of anything. The cases had to be re-
tired at tremndeus cost and expense.
Other litigants, who had cases to try.
we've necessarily delayed and the de-
, lay in some instances amounted al
, most to denial of justice.
In Civil Actions.
81 recommend that the present law |
| tie amended so as to require only a |
three-quarter verdict, or a five-sixths
verdict in civil actions. This would
unquestionably greatly facilitate the
administration of justice and result In
the saving of much time in the trial
of our dockets. No longer could one
| eccentric or dishonest man hang .
Jury, nor could such person hold
the jury together for day or two
Thereby entaiiing personal discomfort
TO the members of the jury and extra
trouble and expense to the county.
What sane and sound reason can be-
tativanced against this change? In the
Legislative halls majority is all that
lts required to enact the laws under
which we live, and in the Supreme
Court of the United States and IN the
tsupreme Court of every State in the
Union, a majority of the members OF
Ithc court is all that is required in ths
Interpretation OF the law. Why then
, fsHould not majority of the jury, say,
fthree-fourths. have the same right
ii4, determine the facts In civil causes?
:. Pc Is not an entirely new and novel
/ proposition.
majority Yerdicts.
Majority verdicts in civil actions
are authorized by law in the State of
: Ohio, in the State of Washington, II
the state of Minnesota and in one or
9 1.-Two other States, and in every instance
: the change has resulted in a decided
!. Improvement in the administration OF 81
Justice. On the 18th instant l adj
r l.d1 essed a letter to Chester L. Caldwell
secretary Of the Minnesota State Ban
Association, and prominent attorney
OF the State, and requested him to
2 write me his views Of the workings o.
the fye-sixths verdict rule in Mime
= sofa. ;.
-. 81 am informed that the major1t!
verdict rule permitting three-fourtns
stl OF the jury to return verdict u
civil actions has proven equally satls
:. DRY in the States of Ohio AM
Washington and has met with the cor
dial anproval of the bar and the PEG
NJ rle of those States.
The amendment to the Constltu
= ton of Ohio authorizing the render
- ing of a verdict by the concurrence
of three-fourths of the jury was adopt
:. ed in 1912 by majority OF 4l,fs
as votes.
Jury Commissioners.
y. while we are discussing the jur
ba system, there is another importai
os change l desire to submit to you 70
"a ycur careful consideration. The pres
II ent method of drawing the juries an
of revising the jury list is very unsati'
an factory, to say the least The coul
, r. commissioners are poorly pal
Is. Their duties are so numerous and I
~ borious that they do not have time
s.. give this important matter the atte1
oo ion it merits and deserves. II
nd county commissioners have charge
M 11av;rg OCT new reads, Of building az
an repairing the roads and bridges u
ra- feyying of taxes, the support OF e
poor. the control of the county cha1
.aa gang, and hundred other matte
roe toe numerous to mention, Their So
ot- cry is 50 each per day and the serVi
cd Usually rendered is on parity WI
Nc their compensation.
raj "The fountain of justice starts WI
M securing competent and intellige
Sd Jurors and each and every nan
lty. ST ould be carefully and maturely co
,rt- sidered before it is placed in the Ju
ec- lbox. The county commissioners
lot have time and opportunity to :
Ity this. I recommend the adoption
ak this state of the same law that b