Year: 1874




In discharging the jury in the Clernon1
case Tuesday Judge Lynch said it would
be fruitless to detain them longer, and We
think he was right, although they stood
eleven to one. At first rumor had it, the
colored members wished to render q verde,
Of $50 and all but one Of their associates
were willing to give SIS. These eleven
soon agreed on compromise Of $37 80 bat
the one held his own and would give nothing
DESTROYS Of rendering verdict those most
interested we're willing at the last to make
the amount only S. but even that wouldn',
suit the gentleman, because he had doubts
of the constitutionality of the law" What
business a juryman sworn to render an
impartial verdict under the law which, as
yet, stands unimpeached, is beyond our
comprehension. A little more conscien-
tious regard of the sanctity of an oath and
made better juror and better citizen OF
him.


The opinion of juror on the constitu.
tionality of law is valueless, but to allow
it to interfere with his sw orn duty is some
thing which calls tor censure. The opinion
court is bound to recognize and excuse the
juror. 1t is analogous, but not precisely
tho same to the conscientious scruples
against capital punishment, which allow
the State to challenge for cause. That re-
suits from natural adherence to the takin g
Of human life, and perhaps an inability to
comprehend the necessity of measures for
the protection of society. But what would
be thought of a juryman who concealed
tecting by those eoruples, that he would
claim were founded on the highest moral
considerations, the criminal who had out
RACED them alll The Judgment in the case
OF Juror in a civil rights case could not be
so severe for the consequences could not be
go nomentous, but the principle is the same.


BESIDES, if he by this obstinate adhesion
to a mistaken idea intended to protect the
defendant his action was inconsiderate and
foolish and he overshot the mark. By pre-
cedent and reason, under this law, the court
is justified in rendering q Judgment for the
full amount claimed, and as this was not
an appealable case the defendant, by the
unreasoniug prejndice of this Juror, will be
mulcted in damages to ten tiEes the
amount the most ardent supporter of the
law ON the jury claimed.


The case OF Lewis VS.. McCloskey was
called next, and the entire panel was ex
hausted without obtaining juror. The
answers of many Of the gentlemen brought
to book were peculiar. Others besides the
one we have referred to had "serious doubts
as TO the cOnstitutiOnality of the law" and
expressed them with all the gravity OF a
Judge of the Supreme Court. They were
instantly excused by Judge Lynch, not only
for the case at bar, but for the remain
der of the term. Again We think the
Judge right. A juror who knows SO much
constitutional law is out of place in the
box. Even on a case of simple promis-
sorry note he might suddenly have aualms
of diseased brain as to the legitimacy OF
the statute of limitations. and his mind
wander of in speculatiOns as to the com
merclal etfdct Of shortening the time when
he should be attending to the evidence.


But the originality OF the challenges for
cause OF the counsel tor the defense awakens
admiration He was exceedingly particular
in asking if, supposing such law existed
and the juror believed in its constitution
ality, he would enforce it, And when the
answer was yes, he gravely submitted to
the court that the Juror was incompetent
Judge Lynch said he never heard that
desire to obey and enforce the laws dis
qualified man for serving on jury.


The answers OF Messrs. Sauvinet and De-
tiege were admirable. They had formed no
opinion as to the constituticnality Of the
law, but they knew it existed. They knew
nothing of the case at bar and had no pre-
judice. If the evidence did not warrant it
they would certainly have no desire to give
verdict for the plaintiff. Mr.. Sauvinet
was objected to because he had an interest
in precisely similar case of his own. He
said his opinion in that case could not at.
feet his decision as a Juror in another. He
had no interest in this one. Counsel might
as we'll object to Juror in an action Of
trespass because he had had a leg broken
by street railroad and had recovered
damages.


The court forced the counsel to use his
right of peremptory challenge. and both
jurors were excused. The impression in
court was that the counsel for the defense
has lost two intelligent and impartial jurors,
and the chances were that by it he had also
lost his case.