The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-25
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.


fcient,' lends interest to the following
comment ON the jury system 10y the Ldw
journal of London:
Timely and significant, in view Of
the triumph of trial 10y jury as secured
by the defence of the realm tamend-
menb bill. are some observations made
10y the Lord chief Justice in the court
of Criminal Appeal on Monday. In the
course of a discussion as to he direction
to jury in n criminal trial. he said:
1T has often been suggested here
that jury Is n set Of unintellig gent peo-
pie. who do not know what II ease is
about until the Judge tells hem IN his
summing up. This court. ever since its
inception. has expressed ihe opinion that
there IL no foundation for such stig
gestion. The mere fact that u Judge
does not put Il case exactly ~ counsel
thinks he should does no; Justify us in
coming to the conclusion that the jury
did not understand the ease.
NEARLY an Lord Readings predeces-
sors have paid notable tributes to trial
by jury. His immediate predpc, SSor,
Lord Alverstone. In his 'Recollectiuns Of
Bar and Bench writes: Watching
inries frequently and very carefully |
have often been struck by the fact that
they seem TO apply their minds to tn"
real issues of the case, disregard ng tn"
particular language in which they have
been addressed Edward DiCey once
remarked to Lord Russell of Halloween
after he had become Lord Chief Justice.
that If he were on mis- trial as an iuno-
cent man he would sooner be tried 10y a
Judge than by a jury. 'lf' was the re-
ply. YOU knew az much of Judges as |
do YOU would change your opinion
jlries. as rule. take "A much more
common sense view Of a ease than the
Judges Lord Coerdg- recognized in
the jury system the popular element in
our administration of justice, aud at
tributed to it much of the public salts.
faction with the work of the court. Sir
Alexander cockburn stated mis- decided
conviction that jury assisted 10y =
Judge Is q far better tribunal for the
elucidatlon Of truth than a Judge un-
assisted by u jury. Here. then. are EN-
phatlc expressions Of confidence In t..
capacity and integrity OF juries by the
last five occupants OF the office of Lord
Chief Justice. Their words may profit
ably be borne in mind by the lesser
mortals who are accustomed TO speak
unexpectedly OF one Of the most anc ent
and valuable institutions in the land"
That one is occasionally in a sort Of
stupor. forgets what she is taking
about, denies ownership of property
when what she possesses j. disappoiut-
ing and not very remunerative, and that
ste has hallucinationS that men are
hiding near her, spying on her. and
wishing TO rob her, Is held In Re Mac
Crellish. L. Il A. lsl5A. I43. not to
show absence Of testameutary capacity
Footprints corresponding with those
made by shoes probably worn 10y ac-
y l.,
driven by him, are admissible as iienti-
fying sNideuc. State ~. cole. KAN
li5 Pac. Al2.
TESTIMONY that. immeJ a,ely after the
shot, deceased called to witness. a few
feet away. and she hurrviug there. amt
asking why he did not get out of fhe
way he said. Il didn't know he was fix
ing to shoot me- Is admissible as res
gestir Rogers vs.. Commonwealth
Ky. III $. W. i6i.
The case of Rigby vs.. HerZf.ld-Phil-
ipson Co. before the supreme Court OF
Wisconsin by "A woman customer OF "A
department store for damages because
hoy employed in the store followed
her tn the street where Sh" Was wait
ing for A car ana 'yo,if-rouSlV' &C
seen her steal goods The boy caused
4 policeman to TAX. the woman back to-
the stor-. where one Of the pruprleturs
after 4 short investigation ApOlugiZtl
10 her and told her a mistake had been
made. The boy was discharged the
following day. The supreme Court up-
held a verdict for the defendant on the
ground that the hoy was acting beyond
his authority and his employers We're
IL a.. - n. 4
we do not desire to minimize the
wrong and injustice done to q decent
woman by q Charg" of this kind. The
liability OF the respondent cannot. how
ever. he measured solely 10y the degree
OF wrong done To the appellant II =
not Liable unless n authorized or rati-
fed that wrong The pursuit, arcusl-
ton against or arrest Of appellant WAS
not within the scope of the bows en-
plOvment There H. nothing To- show
that the hov had any former a,Qualn-
lance with the appellant or had any per-
sonal malice against her tn" hoy ap-
pears tn have he"n oNerntiioioVs and
vocal out OF AL proportion Ia his age
and position. Whether his conduct was
the result Of a crude attempt I" obtain
recognition ana Advancement ur was
the result of what Thomas jefferson
calls 'p.ru.'ude o' puppy ism We need
not inquire These are not uncommon
stains on the shining garments Of Youth
the stigmata Of pu"ril'ty. II ~" could
Justify an act utNrrv sc wro' gfullN done
hy him I'm the protection of his masters
goods against peril. that would NOT "N-
t,.rl the scope Of his agency 50 - to
make the master rtSpuN Slhl" for his
freaks where there WIS uu peril Or AN
swrrahl" Tor his false charges or false
arrests whore no duty or yhag" was