The Mena weekly star., 1916-05-04
| ABOUT ARK ANSAS PEOPLE and DOI|KGS
 nm szsnnzu zan mz By Clio Harper, Special Little hoek
 Correspondent.

! ------------------
 There is a tendency on the part of courts to rely more and more upon the honor of jurors, and not t9 treat them so much like crlmlnai whom they are called upon to try'
 The federal courts are setting a strong example in this respect Tor they do not shut up prisoners at night, keeping them from all com munication with the outside for fear of contamination. They are permitted to separate, with the ad- monition that they are not to dis cuss the case With any one, and that is all,
 Last week the Arkansas supreme court passed on a case that had been appealed because, for one alleged error, the attorney for the plaintiff had given one of the jurors a cigar, and that another attorney in the case was present when a juror was given a cold drink. Counsel for the other side held that this was a con- tamination of the jurors to such an extent that new trial should be granted. The attorney who gave the juror cigar testified that he did so as an act of courtesy, as he had frequently done before, and that he had no thought of influenc- ing the verdict, and did not think his conduct was so understood by the juror"
 It was shown that the jurors were men of standing in the community and they stated their verdict was in no wise affected by what had oc- cured.
 While the court did not say, as it might we'll have said, that a juror who could be bought with cigar or a drink of soda-pop is not wor- thy to be citizen of the Union, 1t did enunciate the following most sensible doctrine:
 While 1t cannot be too strongly insisted that the stream of justice shall be kept pure, so pure as to afford no suspicion of corrupt or improper intermingling of any for eign or hurtful matter, yet it must not be forgotten that no mere irreg- ularities of behavior in this day of greater and wiser freedom for jurors, at least in civil trials, will be permitted to disturb the stabii- ty of judicial proceedings"
 The decision of the Arkansas Su- preme court in the case of Will Hams vs, Donaghey will have very considerable bearing upon the con- duct of political campaigns in the future. The court held, in part, that
 "A reckless and indiscriminate expenditure of funds by anyone without inquiry as to the particular service rendered and without a showing that the service was le- gitimate expense. would tend to a debauchery of voters. and the cor Iruption of elections. A contrast au- thorizing the expenditure of money in this manner would be contrary to public policy and void"
 Pool tables, per SC, are not gam bling devices in the meaning of the Arkansas statutes, in the opinion of volving that question had come up from Little River county. The ap- pellants had been operating pool room at Ashdovn. and were con- victed and fined for exhibiting a gambling device, contrary to the provisions of Section i732 of Kirby Digest. The case had attracted much attention in Little Rock and elsewhere throughout the state, since an affirmation of the lower court would have put the pool ta- Dles out of business. But the couft reversed the lower court with the following ruling
 The pool tables in the hall were ordinary pool tables and the usual games that were played on such tables were played by appellants customers. Appellant had sign up which read: No gambling allowed. and the prosecuting witness stated that so far as he knew no gambling had been allowed in the room. There is not the slightest testimony that the pool rooms were used for gam ing, and that the tables were exhib- tied to attract betters. There is no proof even that any gaming was car ried on in the pool room The de- fendants were not guilty of exhibit ing gambling device under Section l793 of Kirby's Digest"
 Coming Back to Arkansas.