532 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



that would throw light on the flat contradiction between the merchant 



and the banker. One or the other was guilty of perjury. In general 



the degree of confidence placed in the two men was equal. In this 



particular case each of the contradictory versions was consistent and 



reasonable in itself and fitted well into the acknowledged situation. 



The merchant admitted that he had financial difficulties. The banker 



claimed that he was anxious to assist. If this was true, the manner 



in which he claimed to have gone about it was reasonable enough. 



According to the merchant, on the contrary, the only use made of the 



situation by the banker was to extort the note; he submitted to the 



wrong while he was still trying to avoid a second assignment ; when he 



failed in this eff^ort, the banker's hold on him was gone; then he sought 



redress. To an unscrupulous man the situation afforded as good an 



opportunity for such extortion as to give assistance; and if the banker 



chose to abuse his opportunity, Jones' account of his own course in 



the matter was also quite reasonable." 



(No. 3): "As neither plantiff nor defendant was wholly trustworthy, 

 and no corroboration of their respective statements as to the payment of the 

 $1,800 was available, the jury, in view of this contradiction on this point, prob- 

 ably failed to agree on a verdict." (6/7 or 6:1). 



(Part 4) : "The jury decided the case on a division of ten to two, 



the minimum majority necessary in a civil case." 



(No. 4): "In view of this close division and of the unsatisfactory state of 

 the evidence, probably the verdict was reached with great difficulty and delay." 

 (10/11 or 10:1). 



(Part 5): "Their verdict was reached in a comparatively brief 

 interval." 



No. 5): "Probably it was against the merchant because the burden of 

 proof rested primarily on him as plaintiff, and on the main point he had no evi- 

 dence beyond his own unsupported word, which was contradicted by the de- 

 fendant; and moreover, the contemporary payment of $1,775 to a former part- 

 ner and the peculiar dating of the paper, though they were points of doubtful 

 importance in themselves, might naturally prejudice the jury somewhat against 

 the merchant's case." 



(Part 6): "The jury found for the plaintifif." 



(No. 6): "The reason for the verdict was probably that the bearing of 

 Jones at the trial made a more favorable impression on the majority of the 

 jury than that of Smith and led them to give the verdict in favor of the mer- 

 chant." (25/26 or 25:1). 



(Part 7): "The reason for the finding was that the majority 

 of the jury resented a noticeable leaning toward the defendant on the 

 part of the judge, and they determined to show him that they, and 

 not he, should decide the case. It was the judge who examined the 

 erased date with his reading glass and drew attention to its peculiarity. 

 The lawyers for the defence made little reference to the point in their 

 argument, but the judge in his charge remarked that in such a case 



