ican one which was responsible for, "We find the prisoners not guilty, but believe they hooked the pork;"—a verdict matched by a Carlisle jury when they found a watchstealer guilty, but recommended him to mercy because "it was really very hard to say whether he had taken the watch or not." An Irish jury recommended a man to mercy on the ground that he had no recollection of the transaction; but, of all odd reasons for leniency, commend us to that old Devonshire foreman, who, upon being asked why a convicted person was recommended to mercy, replied, "Because it is an aggravated case, my lord!" A Welsh jury were not content with performing their own functions, but usurped the judge's prerogative. Having to decide as to the guilt or innocence of a man charged with uttering a forged note, the sapient men of Cardigan said, "We find the prisoner guilty of telling stories about the note, and think he ought to pay back the money, and have three months for it." "Death by small-pox accelerated by neglect of vaccination," was not bad for a coroner's jury; but much better was the rider to a verdict in a case of accidental poisoning with carbolic acid: "The jury is of the opinion that the public should be warned of the dangerous nature of this diabolic acid."
When the jury in a famous Irish murder case were locked up for the night, it was discovered there were thirteen of them, the odd man being a sociable fellow, who had volunteered his assistance just to have the pleasure of dining with the real jurymen. At another trial, just as the case was drawing to an end, somebody called attention to the fact that one of the jurors had vanished; he was found sitting unconcernedly in the body of the court, having walked out of the jury-box without any idea that he was doing wrong, quite unaware of the responsibility attached to the part for which he was cast.—Chambers' Journal.
