Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/604

 Rh

PUBLISHED MONTHLY AT $4.00 PER ANNUM.

SINGLE NUMBERS 50 CENTS.

Communications in regard to the contents of the Magazine should be addressed to the Editor, THOS. TILESTON BALDWIN, 53 State Street, Boston, Mass.

The Editor will be glad to receive contributions of articles of moderate length upon subjects of interest to the profession; also anything in the way of legal antiquities or curiosi ties, facetice, anecdotes, etc. NOTES.

AN important criminal case was being tried in a western territory and great care had been exercised to get an impartial jury with no preconceived opinions. Every prospective juror had been carefully asked if he had formed any opinion or had any bias in the matter and all on the panel had re sponded in the negative. The case had proceeded to trial and the State had made a strong case, when one of the jurors arose and asked to be excused from the further hearing of the case. The court asked his reason and the conscientious juror responded: "Well, judge, you see I swore, under oath, a while ago, I didn't have any prejudice in this case, and that was so then, but from what I've heard since then I believe I've got such a prejudice I can't render a fair and im partial verdict." The juror was retained. IN the early days of Missouri there was a man named Jackson Vilolet who became de ranged and tried to kill his wife. He had read in the Bible, he said, that without the shedding of blood there was no rémission of sins, and he was seeking to obtain remission. He was brought to the county seat and the question of his sanity submitted to a jury of which Colonel Arnett was the foreman. After hearing the evidence and retiring the jury returned the following verdict which which was written and read by the foreman: "We, the jury, empanelled and sworn well

and truly, to inquire into the consanguinity of Jackson Yilolet, do hereby concur in the affirmative." One of the jurors hunched the foreman and said: "Colonel, that is not right." "Why not," said the Colonel. The answer was, "you are not trying con sanguinity now." Then said the Colonel to another juror: ''Squire Easley, is it consanguinity or insanguinity?" Easley replied: "It is neither, sir." "Then," said Arnett, "we'll put it »ion cornpis mentis," and he so wrote it. AT a certain term of the Brookville Court, Major Bloom, the Nestor of the Bar, fre quently interrupted his Honor one day by asking the crier to call one Billy Brown. "Did he answer?" the Major would query with stately dignity. "No," the court-crier would respond. "I don't understand it; he ought to have answered," the Major would observe. "I want to see him on important business— very important business." In a little while he would again order the crier to call Billy Brown, only to be disap pointed by the failure of Billy Brown to an swer the summons. Finally, a titter began to run through the court-room at which the Major would scowl, stamp his foot and with a furious twirl of his eye-glass resume his seat. The least sign of renewed restlessness on his part provoked the mirth of his associates. "He's about to call Billy Brown again," they would observe. Late in the evening, when the Major had been silent longer than usual on the subject of Billy Brown, his Honor suddenly looked up from his writing and asked: "Isn't it