Denton and Haughton Examiner, etc. — 1885-08-08 (Denton, Greater Manchester, England)

JURY BOX SECRETS. It is pretty well settled that a jury cannot be heard to impugn their verdict on the ground of their own misconduct. Certainly they cannot where the misconduct is that of drawing lots for the verdict. Although this offence is fatal to a verdict, it can only be proved by primary evidence of someone outside the jury, the jury not being allowed to convict themselves of a "high misdemeanour." Lord Mansfield is again the chief authority for this doctrine. The old reports are particularly rich in evidence as to the interpretation which is occasionally put on the oath to "well and truly try." In Aylett r. Jewell we have it on the authority of the defendant's attorney that the jury, being hopelessly divided, agreed to put their names on slips of paper into a hat, draw out six, and return a verdict in accordance with the opinion of the majority of these six. One oh the queerest verdicts on record is that in Hall r. Payser. This was an action on a bill of exchange for £3O, and the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff accepted goods insatisfaction. There was no evidence whatever of part satisfaction; it was all or nothing. The jury, however, gave the plaintiff a verdict for £25. The Court came to the conclusion that the jury —being unable to agree in any other way—had split the difference between plaintiff and defendant, and they ordered a new trial accordingly. There is a story of two jurymen who were so ill-advised as to go and dine and sleep at the defendant's house at the close of the first day of a trial, though, as the plaintiff did not impugn the good faith of the jury, the Court here declined to interfere with the defendant's verdict. Disclosures of the secrets of the jury-box have become less frequent of late years, adds the Law 7imea, but it is by no means certain that if they were forthcomingthey would not be as interesting as ever.  AT the Birkenhead Police-court, before Mr. Preston, stipendiary magistrate, an application has been made on behalf of Mr. R. Parrock, Tranmere-park, for an order to restrain Mr. Alfred Clay, hairdresser, who lived next door, from playing a piano in his house. It appeared that Mr. Parrock's daughter was dangerously ill, and the constant playing of the piano in Mr. Clay's house caused great pain and annoyance to the lady. It was not an ordinary piano playing that was complained of, but the noise apparently made by children thumping on the instrument. Inspector Ashbury stated that he had seen the defendant, but he would not undertake to shut up t' le piano for an indefinite period. Mr. Preston said he would leave the matter in the hands of Superintendent Clark. A maxima suicide is reported to have taken place at Woolarington, near Bridgwater, the deceased being Mr. John Pitman, farmer and haulier, 54 years of age, whose dead body was found in his piggery with his throat cut. At the last divisional petty session the deceased was fined for assaulting his wife, from whom he has since lived apart, and he is stated to have been in a very desponding condition. Eva Pitman, his daughter, a young woman, states that after partaking of breakfast her father left home, telling her that he was going to his haymaking field, and would return at dinner time. About an hour afterwards she repaired to the field and found he had not been seen there. A search was instituted for him, and his dead body was found in the piggery. The throat was cut very badly, and a razor was found tightly clasped between the thumb and finger of the right hand. It is stated • that about a month ago the deceased attempted to hang himself, having fastened a rope round a beam for that purpose, and that he has since been narrowly watched. Commix, G. S.