HUMOUR IN THE COURTS.

Shannon News, 7 January 1927, Page 4

HUMOUR IN THE COURTS.

THE SEARCH TOR TRUTH. A LUCKY PLAINTIFF. (By Wilfred Blacket, K.G.)., In one respect they differed from the juries of to-day, for they could listen to a lot of oratory without displeasure, and would even yield to its influence. At least, they usually could, although in one case a juror interrupted counsel’s oration by asking the judge: "Your Honour, must we listen to all this rot'?” and the judge sympathetically said, "Yes, gentlemen, you must and so must I.” Usually, however, they were much moved by eloquence and delighted in it, whereas the juries of to-day are apt to resent appeals- to emotion rather than reason. They don’t want to hear anything about Magna Charta or other matters of that kind; they only want to find out "who stole the ducks?” and in the old times they wfere as keen as they are now in making diligent search for, the truth in the interests of justice and the public good. Sometimes they failed, but not often. In one of the Sydney jury courts there was once a case very complicated in its facts and of much difficulty in respect of the law. - For three days counsel objected and argued as to the evidence, and on the morning of the fourth day the foreman said the jury wanted to ask a question. It was: "Your Honor,,the jury want to know which is the plaintiff and which is the defendant?" With consent of the par-

ties the jury was discharged and the case was tried by the judge alone. Agreed to Disagree. ' In another very heavy case the damages awarded to the plaintiff were astonishingly great. This was the result of a clerical error by a special„4ury of twelve. In arriving at the amount of damages they had followed tho not unusual plan of putting down the amounts approved by jurors individually and then dividing the total so as to get the average. But in this case the jurors, never having been on a jury of twelve, divided the total by four, and then gave the plaintiff three times as much as they had intended to. This goes to prove that you never know your luck at the trots or the jury courts. A very remarkable case occurred at the Central Criminal Court at Darlinghurst. The prisoner was indicted for criminal libel, and he defended himself with very great ability, crossexamining the prosecutor "out of his boots," and getting serious admissions of the most damaging kind. There was no doubt about the defamatory nature of the publication. That the prosecutor "ought to be chained.up for life in an asylum for criminal lunatics” was one of its mildest passages. To acquit would have been a public scandal, and the jury hated the idea of convicting, and so, without any discussion, they unanimously agreed" to disagree, and that seems to have been a very just and sensible decision. The case was not again brought to trial. It is well that jurors should rely upon their own judgment as to the facts of a case and should stand by it. They generally did. Once when a verdict returned did not please the judge, he said, with signs of annoyance, "You find for the plaintiff. Why, I thought the evidence was all one way?” "So it was, your Honor,” placidly replied the foreman.

Once a jury went a little further than that. The judge expressed some astonishment at a verdict for the .plaintiff, and said that on his direction and the evidence he had thought thp verdict must be for the defendant, whereupon the foreman said: “Oh, yes, we know that, but some of us don’t agree with your Honor’s definition of negligence.” On the Judge’s Side.

Another occurrence that has some relevance here was in a criminal case tried in very ancient times. It was a case in which the judge obviously expected a speedy verdict and conviction. But the jury stayed out for hours; they didn’t want any of the evidence read over or any further explanation. After many hours’ retirement they were called into court, and as one of the twelve appeared to be playing a lone hand, his Honor spoke of the desirability of reaching some conclusion, and of the duty of a juror to reconsider his opinion when he found that the other jurors had been able to come to a firm conclusion. The odd man stood this for some time, and then he a little indignantly said: “But I am the only one on your Honor’s side!”