Year: 1875

A communication signed by eleven OF the
jurymen was sent to Judge Nelson yesterday
stating that there is no possibility OF YER
dict and asking to be discharged. Accom-
panying this was a communication from the
other juryman saying that he did not think
they ought yet TO be discharged, as they were
still discussing the evidence, and he thought
they might proftaby stay out longer On
receiving these communications Judge Neil
son gave notice to the counsel Of the parties
to come into court and meet the jury. There
was a futter Of excitement and expectation,
and the court room was filed long before the
counsel appeared. When the jury filed in
and took their seats there was general hush
and all eyes were fixed on them. MIR. Car
penter, the foreman, in reply to Judge Neil
sons questions stated, with positive air,
that the jury could not agree if they should
deliberate month, repeating, what appeared
in the written communication, that eleven OF
the twelve were decidedly OF this opinion. In
reply to further questioning MIR. Carpenter
said that they did not differ on points of
law, but questions of fact They were
thereupon sent back to their room for further
deliberation, the Judge expressing great regret
at their inability to agree in so important
case, and urging them 70 make further efforts
to reach a verdict. OF course nobody expects
an agreement, and they will probably be
again brought into court to-day and dis
charged.


The inference which some Of the friends of
Mr.. Beecher have drawn from Mr.. Carpenters
statement as to the standing of the jury is un-
warranted by anything he said. lie did not
say that they stood eleven for Beecher and
one for Tilton, but that eleven saw no pos
sibIlity of agreeing, while one had some
hopes of verdict. If that one were Til
ton man. standing out against eleven Beecher
men, it would be absurd for him TO expect to
bring them over to his side and secure ver-
dict. Moreover, ii the one man who still
hopes for a verdict is Tor Iilton, and the
eleven who despair of q verdict are for
Beecher their settled opinion that there can
be no agreement is absurd. For, if only one
juryman stands out against them and
he shows signs Of wayering ver-
dict would be. highly probable. A
more reasonable conjecture is that the
jury have heretofore stood ten to two ana that
the juror who thinks an agreement possible is
one of the two dlssentsrs from the majority.
If this be the state of the jury it would seem
that one of the two Tilton men is ready TO
change sides and 60 ith the majority il his
dissenting colleague viii 90 with hun. But of
this tue eleven whose opinions are fixed have
not the laintest shadow OF hope. The con-
sequence is that the six months Of this weari-
some trial have been wasted and the parties
revert to the same condition in which they
stood at the outset. The community at large
will share in Judge Nelson's regret and NOR
ti6cation at so lnpotent a result.


We do not at all join in the reprobation ex-
pressed in some quarters at Judge Nelson's
wish to hold the jury together until they come
to an agreement Judicial trials have two
objects. One is to do justice between the
parties and the other to put an end to contro-
versies The first chiefly concerns the liti-
gants and the other the public. This trial has
been carried on at q heavy expense to the
county Of Kings for the sole benefit of these
private parties. II would be monstrous
Tor the county to be subjected to this heavy
expense a second time, and yet second trial
is the natural legal consequence of disagree
ment of the jury. Ii 1t should not be the
actual practical consequence, it will not be
because Tllon has not as perfect right to
bring second suit rs he had to begin the
first, but because he may not be able to find
counsel who viii again serve without any
| EDFf tna inv And
verdict, either Tor one side or the other, it
would end the litigation and protect the
/ county against repetition Of this burden.
1t is perfectly right for Judge Nelson to in
sst on a verdict which would give this
nauseous scandal final quietus as a subject
Of litigation in the Brooklyn courts. If the
/ parties or the community continue to wrangle
! over it that is their own affair and nobody
can prevent them. But verdict for either
/ side would settle the legal controversy for
ever, unless an appeal should be made from
the judicial rulings, for which there is 40
ground, the counsel on both sides conceding
! Judge Nelson impartiality and correctness.
1t is not for the public peace to allow citizens
! to be their own judges and redress their own
! wrongs, and hence tribunals are established
at the public expense for deciding their dis
/ putes But such controversies must have an
end, and there is no way so effectual of end
ing them as by the verdict of jury. When
! twelve impartial men have unanimously de-
/ cided question one way there is no possibil-
ity that twelve other impartial men could be
brought to decide it the other way on the
same evidence. This is the ground on which
the verdicts of juries are required to be
unanimous. The unanimity ends the contro-
versy and protects the public against the ex-
pense of new trials, unless o higher court
should overruIe the points of law. All citi-
zens who have clear perception of the rea-
sons and basis Of the Jury system will heartily