JULIES’ VERDICTS.

Evening Star, Volume 4246, Issue 4246, 5 October 1876, Page 2

JULIES’ VERDICTS.

Daring the trial of the cases of Regina v. Walter* and Bp-he in the Supreme Court yeiterdflp, very pointed reference was made by the Crown Prosecutor and the Judge to the inattention of juroifl and the inconsistency of the verdicts with the evidence in many of the cdses set down for trial at this sessions.

The Ciown Prosecutor (td the jury): lam endeavoring to make yon understand the case, and the least you eenld do is twpny aome attention to it. If you wish to live in a society of criminals it is nothin? to me, and I will sit clown and not proceed further if von do not wish to hear me. During the whole of this session the inattention displayed on the part of jurors to the fact of crime being rumpant in our midst is a subject, your Honor, that calls for some remark. Under ordinary circumstances, I do not care much whether the jury attends to me or not.

Mr E, Cook (counsel for the prisoners) objected to • lies* remarks of the Crown Prosecutor, as being very prejudicial to his clients. His Honor: I differ from yon, Mr Cook. If the jury are inattentive the Crown Prosecutor is quite right in drawing at eution to the fact. The Drown Prosecutor: Gentlemen of the Jnry, you are part of the machinery for preserving society in a proper condition. If yon consider this, then, you will pay more attention to the esse than you seem inclined to pay to the duties you are performing in that bo*. Do not think that it matters the least bit to the learned judge or myself, who are conducting the case as a matter of duty, and who have no interest in the result and no feelings in it, whether you attend to your duties or not, except as members of the comma-ity. Speaking for myself, at any rate, I say this, that the result of this prosecution is a matter which has no bearing upon me except as a member, of the community. If the jurors will disregard evidence time after time, and the duties before them, and give verdicts diametrically opposed to that evidence, and without a single doubt beiug cast upon the credibility of the witnesses adduced before them, and if yon do not, os in this case, pay the slightest regard to the efforts of the Crown Prosecutor and to the points of the case, I must say that changes wil, be required in the manner in which criminal prosecutions are to be conducted in C yurts of Justice. His Honor: The Grown Prosecutor h 3 s made some remarks during the course of his address, and which I did rot then interrupt, not knowing how far he was going. He called attention to the fact that jesa wero not attentive. You know better than I whether you were so or not. If you were inattentive, he was right in directing the attention of tho Court to it. Uut iho learned counsel did more than that, and I am sure that he will, upon reflection, agree wit hj the remarks which I am about to make upon the general character of the verdicts which iave been given by juries. I presume that he referred to the present aesdon. I think that it was undesirable that these remarks shtnld have been made at the time they were made. At tl-e some time, X must say that there have been two or three occasions during this sittin s, on which tho verdicts found by tho juries were, to say the lea*t of it, such as I did i.ot agree with. I said nothing at the time, because the object of a tria by jury is 'that the jury should give its decision upou the case. Ido not believe in Judges making remarks upon the decisions o? jurirs. There wero throe verdicts given which I would not have given. Different people, however, take different views of facts, and it is quite possible that you and tho other jurors may have been misled by the mnxim which we nro all willing to apply, but which may be stretched too far—uamsiy. that prisovors are to have the benefit of the djubt. That must, be interpreted os I have int rprelcdlt to you. The don' t must be a reasonable one.