It is of most essential importance to the due administration of justice
that juries should be sensible of their own dignity; and, when occasion
requires, that they should not implicitly and servilely bow to the
opinion of any judge, however high he may be held in estimation. An
instance of the beneficial result of a jury asserting, in a respectful
manner, the privilege of having an opinion of their own, occurred, not
at the assizes now holding, but not very long ago. Two men were indicted
for a burglary: after the counsel for the prosecution had opened, the
amiable and learned judge who presided, addressing the jury, said,
“Gentlemen, there does not appear to me any probability that a case of
burglary can be made out against the prisoners, it is therefore needless
to occupy your time any further.” The jury having, however, conferred
for a short time, the foreman replied, “With perfect deference to your
lordship’s opinion we should rather prefer hearing the evidence.” To
this his lordship readily assented: the case went on, and the guilt of
the prisoners was proved beyond the possibility of a doubt. After the
verdict was returned, the learned judge said, “Well, gentlemen of the
jury, I will not say that you are better _lawyers_ than I am, but I am
quite sure that in the present instance you have proved yourself to be
better _judges_.”[354]
[354] Times, August 27, 1827.
* * * * *