Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/687

 Latest Important Cases instructions asked for on behalf of the de iendantz

"Defendant's Counsel: I ask your honor to charge the jury that while it is the duty of each juror to discuss and consider the opinion of others, he must decide the case upon his own opinion of the evidence and upon his own judgment. "The Court: I shall not tell them that. I shall tell the juror that he should join with

his cojurors and should make in some respect their opinion his own. "Defendant's Counsel: I except. “The Court: If, after discussing with his fellow-jurors, he changes his mind, it is just what he ought to do if he (an. I shall not advise a juryman to make himself a standard for everybody else. You never could accomplish anything that way. "Defendant's Counsel: I except to the refusal of the Court to charge as requested and to the charge as made." The Court of Appeals sustained the excep tions, its opinion being rendered by Chase, J. To quote:—

655

requires six months’ residence, and she com menced suit May 16, 1910, obtaining judgment by default on July 25, 1910. She thereupon left Nevada with no intention of returning. In Calin v. Catlin, decided by the New York Supreme Court early in October, she sought to have the Nevada decree giving her the custody of her two children enforced. In his decision in the New York Supreme Court, Justice Whitney said: "The Reno divorce, even if the relator obtained a domicil there, was void for want of jurisdiction. But I do not think that her residence there amounted to a domicil." The Court held that the relator was still the wife of the respondent, and that her Reno divorce was invalid in New York State.

Newfoundland Fisheries Oase. Modiﬁ cation of Treaty Provisions by Local Legisla tion-—Signatories Cannot Determine Reason ableness of Regulations—The Three-Mile Marina Territorial Limit-—Measuring from Entrances of Local Bays. Hague Tribunal. Of the two principal points decided by the award of the Hague Tribunal in the New

foundland Fisheries case it is diiﬁcult to tell “Urging a jury to an agreement contrary to the individual opinion and judgment of one of the jurors may be coercion. The ver dict of a jury should not be the general average of the views of its individual members, but

the consensus of individual judgment. Every juror takes an oath that is individual, and that puts upon him as an individual the responsibility of correctly determining the matters submitted. He is a member of the body of twelve men, but he acts individually and is alone answerable to his conscience. Brewer, J., in State v. Dydee (17 Kansas 462), was quoted as expressing the same thought: "A verdict is an expression of the con currence of individual judgment rather than the product of mixed thoughts.” (Reported in N. Y. Law ]our., Oct. 11.) Marriage and Divorce. Nevada Divorce Invalid in New York-jurisdictio n-Do micil. N. Y. Mrs. Marion Briggs Catlin married George L. Catlin in 1900 in Jersey City. In August, 1909, she was advised by her doctor to go to some higher climate for her health. She had made up her mind previously to go West and get a divorce and went to Reno, Nevada, in November, 1909. The Nevada statute

which is the more important. That decided in Question 1, however, is likely to possess broader bearings from the standpoint of international law. The full text of the ﬁndings not being accessible, we conﬁne our observa tions to matters appearing in the text of the award. Question 1 dealt, in its essence, with the

existence of any right in a British colony to modify the provisions of a treaty between Great Britain and the United States. On this subject three alternative views were advanced: (1) that the right of ﬁshing on the treaty coasts is subject to reasonable municipal regulation by the colony owning such coasts;

(2) that the reasonableness of

regulations aFfecting the exercise of treaty privileges may be determined only by common accord of the signatories of the treaty;

(3)

that the reasonableness of such regulations may be determined only by an impartial authority. Neither of the ﬁrst two of these propositions, those of Great Britain and the United States respectively, was satisfactory to the Tribunal, which substituted a third view of its own. The result could scarcely be called a victory for either party. It is interesting to take the contention of the United States, as summarized in the