Year: 1874

CURI0SITIES OF JURY TRIALS


Trials by jury may be, as an advo
cate lately styled it, the most magni
ficent of institutions; but its magnif
cence is not little tarnished at times
when, as may happen by English law
twelve Ignorant, stupid, Or crotchety
men get together in the box. The last
are, perhaps, the most mischievous,
since, needless of their oaths, they
will turn things the clean contrary
way, rather than run counter to what
they dignity as conscientious scruples.
Thanks to strange craze for non
conviction that has for some time past
possessed the people of a certain his
torical town, Not guilty" has be.
come the stercotyed verdict of its iur
les, and justice has been again anG
again, as it were, checkmated through
her own badly disposed pawns.


Not that Warwick jurors are the
only ones capable of setting evidence
on one side. A Worcestershire Jury
acquitted man in the face of over.
whelming, testimony, merely because
he happened to be defended by the
son Of local magnate the foreman
of the precious twelve actually believ-
ing they had done something meri
torious, exul'ingly saluting the squire
day or two afterward. When a
Welsh jury thought it right to acquit
prisoner, despite an emphatically un
favorable summing up, Baron Bran,
well told them ne hoped they had re-
conciled their consciences to theil
verdict, but by what process they had
done it he declared he was utterly un.
able to guess. What would the Bar
on have said to the twelve obstinate
backwoodsmen, who, sitting upon the
body of an Indian, undeniably done
TO death by the random shooting of
the guardian Of potato plot, made
things pleasant all around by pro.
nouncing the unlucky savage had
been worried to death by a dog; and
that not satisfying the reasonable
coroner, altered their verdict to-
"Killed by falling over cliff" and
stuck to that version spite Of all re,
monstrance! 1t must be allowed
that when jurymen ignore evidence in
this way, they generally err on the
side of mercy unlike the jury of old
who found the man guilty of murder
against whom there was not q little
of evidence, and when challenged by
the Judge, replied through their fore,
man that an atroclous crime had beer
committed, for which somebody ought
to be punished, and they did not see
why it should not be the man before
them, as we'll as another !


Once upon a time it was dangerous
for the box to differ from the bench


a jury daring to assert an opinion O.
their own. being liable to find them
selves thrown upon the tender mercies
Of the Star Chamber. Instances, in
deed, are not wanting of the Judge
taking upon himself to punish jury
men for not following his direction.
Penn, the Quaker, was instrumental
IN freelng them OF this terror. Wher
he and Mead were brought before the
Lord Mayor and the Recorders charg
ed with preaching in Gracechurch
street, the jury were thrice sent back
to reconsider their verdict, and shape
it to the desired pattern. The last
time they were locked up for the
night, but the morning found them Of
the same mind and "Not guilty" was
still their award. II am sorry," said
the irate Recorder; ~ am sorry you
have followed your own judgments
and opinions rather than the good ad
vice that was given you. pray tha,
my life may be kept out ofyour hands!
But for this the court fines you forty