MftPMfUpill'lP'
IWW.WHUyn'W, my1"' mivw&m-:
r-w. n7VWr"T-qw
r""i'.iTiiiiiim..iut,"
The Commoner.
lRCH 27, 1903.-
3
HE -EXPERIENCES OF A JURYMAN
mm
ritJHpmMmm!mmipmw&
IP
.'
4
-W
The readers of The Commoner may bo inter
ted in some comments upon the jury system
om a juror fresh from the service of his conn
's .
y. For Ave days of last weeit I served as a
SJuror on the regular pannel of the district court
Lancaster county, and I may add, incidentally,
will draw from the county $10.00 for. my services
,'Jknd 30 cents mileage (being five cents for each
11 mile to and from the farm). I was called on
three juries, and having neither formed nor ex
pressed an opinion upon the merits of the cases,
as each time accepted. .
A word as to the, method of selection. The
,w in Nebraska provides that each side shall
allowed three peremptory challenges. In some
laces the attorneys are required to make their
remptory challenges from among the twelve
en who are not subject to challenge for cause,
tad then new men are called to take their places
the box. In the district court of Lancaster
jgunty, howeVer, the judgos have adopted a plan
calling eighteen jurors instead of twelve. If
is challenged for cause his place is filled and
when at last eighteen have been passed, for cause
each side striked off three, alternating in the
striking, leaving twelve jurors to ' try the case.
.This has an advantage over the method some-
K i'times employed in that the peremptory challenges
'i'aro made after all have been passed for cause,
and thus each side can strike off the three least
cceptable. If all the peremptory challenges are
Sxercised and then the places filled, It may be that
ithe new jurors, though not subject to challenge, for
"ause, may be less acceptable than men already
Challenged. In other words, the method now in
brogue in Lancaster county seems most likely to
Secure a fair and impartial jury.
The first case tried before our jury was a
$iiH nrnlriRt nn inRiirn.no.fi fiomnnnv. but as the
t9f? J... J .... i.t. .nnnUnnHnn nP fllrw TlftUnw If
flCabO UUIUUU UJJUU LUU UUUOUUlilluu Ul iu jt'""W iv
was taiien out ot cue iuiuub ul iub juijt uu u.
frerdict given for the defendant in pursuance of
Specific instructions from the court.
The second case considered by the jury upon
which I served was an action brought against the
gunty by a person who had suffered injury duo,
he alleged, to the negligence of the county in
ie care or a pudiic mgnway. rue eviueuco
towed that the injury sustained was small. The
loctor's bill was $5.00, the horse was lame for a
:ew days and the buggy damaged, but not rend
ered useless. There were three questions in
volved. First, was the road properly cared for
and sufficiently safe for travelers exercising rea
sonable care; second, was the plaintiff guilty of
any act of negligence that "approximately," as the
'court instructed, contributed to the accident; and,
Ethird, what was the amount of the damage. As
fjoon as the jury reached the consultation room
fnd a foreman was selected (it happened in this
case, as in the others, that I was selected as fore-
faaan), a vote was taken first upon the proposi
tion, "Shall the verdict be for the plaintiff or de-
Sfendant" Upon this ballot it was found that a
majority favored a verdict for the defendant
Then followed a discussion of the merits of the
case, each juror giving his reason for voting as
he did, and this discussion was exceedingly inter-.,
esting because it showed the various points of
view from which twelve unbiased men could look
at the testimony. It soon developed that some of
those who voted for the defendant believed that
the road was not properly cared for, but that the
injury was so small that the plaintiff should have
no considerable award, and as no one felt that
the injury was sufficient to Justify more than
nominal damages, the jury finally agreed to a
verdict of $5. This was a compromise verdict and
.was accepted by all as" doing substantial justice
W
both to tho county and the plaintiff. While the de
cision of a case in tho district court is not con
sidered as establishing a legal precedent binding
upon other courts it may bo worth while to say
that tho negligence complained of consisted in tho
county's maintaining a road only thirty-two feet
in width, (tho usual width is sixty-six feet),
around the bank of a creek (a deviation from tho
section line) with nothing to protect travelers
from falling over the bank and Into tho creek
bottom some eight feet below. The, plaintiff hav
ing occasion to pass there on a dark night wont
over tho bank and suffered tho injuries com
plained of.
The third case was a replevin suit, appealed
from the justice court, and Involved the title and
right to possession of about four tons of wild
hay. In this case the evidence showed that tho
plaintiff obtained a lease to 80 acres of land which
included about 7 acres of hay land, the land be
longing to a young woman whoso mother was in
the habit of attending to the business for her.
The mother made a verbal agreement in regard to
the renting of the land with tho expectation that
a lease would afterwards be drawn up and signed.
After the plaintiff had gone into possession under
this verbal agreement the lease was presented by
the defendant in the case, the brother of tho
young lady who owned the land. When the tenant
read over the lease he noticed that the hay land
was not specifically mentioned and wanted to in
sert a clause in the lease, but the defendant ob
jected, and upon this point there was a difference
in the testimony, the plaintiff testifying that tho
defendant said that the hay land was included and
that there would bo no trouble about it, and tho
defendant denying the statement. The evidence
showed, however, that tho plaintiff obtained a
mower from the defendant and mowed a part of
the hay, but that owing to the wet season the
hay was spoiled. The defendant afterwards went
in and cut the remainder of tho hay claiming that
he did so to protect his sister's rights and that he
did so with her acquiescence, although he testified
that she had not expressly authorized him to cut
it He also admitted that his mother, in the
presence of his sister, told him ho had better not
cut it As soon as the jury entered the consulta
tion room a vote was taken and a majority of tho
jurojs expressed themselves in favor of the plain
tiff." In the discussion that followed it became
apparent that all the jury desired substantially the
same thing, namely, that the plaintiff should be
declared entitled to the hay, but that as the. de
fendant was acting, as ho believed, in the interest
of his sister, the judgment should carry as little
cost as possible. The jury returned a verdict for
plaintiff and fixed the damages at $12, but as the
parties and nearly all the witnesses were related
either by blood or marriage, the foreman, at the
request of the jury, submitted two rec6mmenda
tionB, and asked that, if possible, they be made a
part of the judgment of the court. The recommen
dations were, first, that as the plaintiff, if entitled
to recover, would owe one-half the value of the"
hay to the owner of the land, the sister of the
defendant, the defendant bo permitted to satisfy
one-half of the judgment with a receipt from his
sister for her share of the hay; and, second, that
each party pay the fees of the witnesses called by
him. While the judgment was not made contin
gent upon the acceptance of these conditions, tho
plaintiff's attorney signified his willingness to
Jiave them' made a part of the judgment. And
thus my service as a juror came to an end.
Having had some experience in trying to
convince others, it was a refreshing change to
sit in the jury box and listen to the arguments of
the attorneys. Having heard the evidence and
having measured it, as ono must as tho case pro
ceeds, it was instructive to noto tho manner In
which each attornoy mado clear and emphatic tho
points that strengthened his client's case. I have so
often taxed tho patience of hearers that I could
not well ask that a limit bo placed upon those
who talked to us. In tho jury room tho merits of
tho lawyors was at times discussed. In ono case
two prominent young lawyers were opposed to
each other, and each had mado a gallant fight for
his client Ono juror, speaking of tho lawyer for
the plaintiff, said that ho was especially eloquent
and convincing.' "But," replied another juror,
"who couldn't make a good speech on that side?
Tho facts were on his side and that made his
speech necessarily convincing; but look at tho
defendant's attornoy see how skillfully ho pre
sented a bad side." It reminded mo of tho con
versation between two men as to which was en
titled to tho moro credit, tho sun or the mpon.
Tho advocate of tho sun thought no had his case
won when the moon's defender overwhelmed his
antagonist with the assertion that tho sun only
gave his light by day when t was not necessary,
while tho moon gavo her light by night when tho
light was badly needed.
A fact clearly brought out by jury service was
that tho opinion of the judge had great weight
with tho juror even aside from the Instructions
givon. The manner in which ho admitted or ex
cluded testimony and any suggestion which ho
mado that bore even remotely upon tho merits of
the case had its Influence. This was complimen
tary to tho judge before whom the case was tried
because it showed the confidence tho jurors had in
his Integrity.
Five days of jury service before tho court and
In tho jury room deepened, if possible, my confi
dence in the jury system. It Is not only good for
what it does, but also for what it prevents. Our
judges aro better because either party can sum
mon a jury in a case at law. .If all cases were
necessarily tried before a jury the great corporate
interests which hav.o grown up in tho country
would bo even moro tempted than now to use
their influence In the selection of judges friendly
to them before nomination, or who could bo obli
gated to them during the campaign. There is
much moro latitude in the decision o a question
of fact than in a decision which rests upon a ques
tion of law, and the judges themselves may feel
grateful that the jury not only relieves them of
much labor, but also shields them from a pressure
that might bo difficult to bear.
The judge before whom the hay case was
tried, in dismissing the jury for the term, took
occasion, not only to commend the jurors for tho
manner in which they had discharged their duty,
but to testify to his Increasing love for the jury
system as a part of the court of justice.
That Ex-Slave Pension Bill.
Mr. Hanna may not appreciate the defense,
but The Commoner insists that tho senator from
Ohio was inveigled into introducing the ex-slave
pension bill. It, or a similar bill, was introduced
"by request" about 1889 by a republican member of
congress from the Omaha district. About 1895 it
was again introduced "by request" by a republi
can senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hanna was doubt
less persuaded to introduce this bill of fourteen:
years' standing without thinking that the "by
request" would be dropped and tho bill attributed
to him. He cannot say that he Is against the
bill because that might anger some of the colored
people who favor It, but he might, now that he ia
in it, use tho argument that was advanced in
1890, namely, that tho bill was really a measure
for the (indirect) aid of agriculture. Xhe gentle
man who suggested this insisted that as the col-,
ored people, were fond of watermelons an appro
priation for their benefit would soon find its way
back to the farmer. '
Mt
tMwJimMWViMMwvHWMmiil0ll&iitt tim m lmuirtw