French Broad hustler. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1916-1919, 1919-03-06
CONSCIENTIOUS JURORS
Ihey Figured in Whiskey Case Tried
il Washington.

Seattle, Wash, Feb, 27.-CriminaI
cases revolving around the sale and
possession Of whiskey Of recessitv
must nave as a first fact proof OF the
nature Of the liquid which the State
asserts is whiskey. The jury must
KNOW that the contents of the bottle
is WhiskeyS and there is only one
way to be certain about whiskey-one
must be strong, brave and sufficiently
lnbuSd wKh a sense of justice to
drink it. This, we are sure, was the
ruling motive with the jury which
Judge Frater so roundly denounced
on Christmas eve.
Ehe Jury had as evidence 4 uuars
battle labeled whiskey, a bottle tight
y 2oTked. It looked, it is tue. li:.c
wniskey, but the jury ~obyio",:'y cpnJJ
not depend upon mere outward a.
r~taIance5. RealiZi g the g .evity ii
lie Ease, the jury .ppealed 70 I"der
Frater for a corkscrew, which the
Judge declined to give. Perhaps the
court was not in possession Of this
useful device, but in any event the
jury was put to the d~isagreeable al
Tentative Of forcing the cork down the
neck CT the bottle. At this stage Of tue
proceeding the jury were able to at
isfy thelnelves that the contents of
the bottle smelled like w~hiskey, as
well as looked like whiskey. Ali ind1-
cations pointed to the fact that it was
whishey, yet, rather than do this de-
PENDANT an injustice, the jurors tasted
the contents of the bottle.
There we're, it must be remembered,
twelve jurors, and, manifestly, every !
juror was obliged to taste as well as
smell the contents of the bottle, and
twelve drinks from a quart, which
was presumably was only a fifth, |
could not be expected to leave more in
the bottle than sufficient to float the
cork. And, according to all testimony
the cork was floating when the jury
came in with a verdict Of not guilty.
This fact, we feel it necessary to point
out, was an evidence Of reasonable
ness on the part of the jurors, who
might have sent for more evidence If
the first drink had not convinced
them of the defendants innocence.
AS the matter stands, there is no
recorded evidence to show that the
bottle did contain whiskey. We can
hardly. go back of the jury's finding,
which was mot guilty" and tina:
would seem to indicate that, after
drinking from the bottle, the jurors
that it wasn't whiskey.
Certainly the court cannot expect
any conscientious juror in these
when whiskey is selling fo- SO
q quart, to take any chances on the
possibility that the bottle does not
whiskey. If it is necessary
IN give the bottle to the jury, the ne
cessity of the jurors sampling its
contents follows, for what other in
can the jury make? If the
Iiouid looks like whiskey, smells ike
whiskey, tastes like whiskey, and has
J. kick like whiskey, the presumptIoh
Is that it is whiskey. But the court
will agree with us, we think as a
principle of law hat every testimony
must be exhausted every possibility
error eliminated, before arriving a.
conclusion.
Once this becomes | s2t;t::i jag
ice in our courts, the difficulty mere
,ofore experienced in selecting jurors
will cease The only trouble hence-
.orth will be in keeping good citizens
,ff the jury.-Seattle Post-lntelllgen-
GER.