Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 01.pdf/348

Rh discharged them then and there. The same course was adopted with the next two, who were sent on their way rejoicing after receiving a lecture from the bench. Then came the pear-stealing case. Stealing pears from market stalls would seem to be a favorite amusement among the juvenile Brugeois at this season of the year. In this instance the culprit was a gamin of about eight years old, and he had been caught red-handed. But in consideration of his youth, and also, I believe, in accordance with a provision of the Belgian law, the judge declined to punish him, and he too was acquitted. Upon this I ventured to express some surprise to the usher at the number of acquittals in the face of uncontradicted evidence. He admitted that they were rather numerous, but he added, in a triumphant tone, "Last week a boy was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for the same offence." I found this to be the case, and much indignation has been caused thereby among the Brugeois, as the lad was only fifteen. Three other cases were tried, making seven in all, and every one of the prisoners was acquitted. There was no one else in the list; so the judges rose, the soldiers presented arms, and the day's work, which had lasted barely three quarters of an hour, was at an end.—Daily News.

CURIOSITIES OF JURY TRIALS.

RIAL by jury may be, as an advocate lately styled it, the most magnificent of institutions; but its magnificence is not a 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, heedless of their oaths, they will turn things clean the contrary way, rather than run counter to what they dignify as conscientious scruples.

A Worcestershire jury acquitted a man in the face of overwhelming testimony, merely because he happened to be defended by a son of a local magnate; the foreman of the precious twelve, actually believing they had done something meritorious, exultingly saluted the Squire, a day or two afterwards. When a Welsh jury thought it right to acquit a prisoner, despite an emphatically unfavorable summing up, Baron Bramwell told them he hoped they had reconciled their consciences to their verdict, but by what process they had done it, he declared he was utterly unable to guess. What would the Baron 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 a potato-plot, made things pleasant all round by pronouncing that the unlucky savage had been worried to death by a dog; and, that not satisfying the unreasonable coroner, altered their verdict to, "Killed by falling over a cliff;" and stuck to that version in spite of all remonstrance! It must be allowed, however, that when jurymen ignore evidence in this way, they generally err on the side of mercy.

Once upon a time it was dangerous for the box to differ from the bench; a jury daring to assert an opinion of their own being liable to find themselves thrown upon the tender mercies of the Star-chamber. Instances, indeed, are not wanting of the judge taking upon himself to punish jury men for not following his direction. Penn the Quaker was instrumental in freeing them from this terror. When he and Mead were brought before the lord mayor and the recorder charged with preaching in Gracechurch Street, the jury were thrice sent back