THE JURY SYSTEM. 677 



mercial age, when business extends over such wide territories, and 

 when commercial transactions are usually evidenced more or less by- 

 written instruments, a debtor may be sued wherever he can be found, 

 except in a few special cases, yet, on the other hand, crimes which, 

 from the nature of the case, are evidenced usually and almost wholly 

 by living witnesses, must still be tried in the vicinage or county 

 where they were committed. While most civil actions may now be 

 brought wherever the defendant may be found, yet the jury must be 

 called from the vicinity of the forum in which they are tried. In the 

 early history of the jury, vicinage meant simply the immediate neigh- 

 borhood, while the same term is now used to denote the whole terri- 

 tory over which the court has jurisdiction. Calling the jury from the 

 vicinage would seem to have the advantage of strengthening local 

 self-government. Litigants usually have the assurance that their 

 rights are to be determined, not by strangers who may be used to 

 different customs and habits of life, but by their neighbors, upon 

 whose rights they in turn may be called upon to adjudicate. And 

 this feature of the jury has the further advantage that, while the 

 jurors know nothing about the facts of the particular case, yet the 

 parties have the benefit of whatever good repute they may sustain 

 among their neighbors. So, while the reasons that gave rise to this 

 restriction in calling a jury no longer exist, yet, when reasonable pro- 

 visions are made for a change of venue in cases of violent popular 

 feeling, there are some advantages derived from it, and there seems 

 to be no good reason for a change. 



2. We are next to consider the jury with reference to their pre- 

 vious knowledge of the facts in dispute. As before intimated, in the 

 early stages of the system the jurors were called because they knew 

 more or less about the facts in the case, and if, upon examination, it 

 should be found that any one who was called was entirely ignorant of 

 the facts to be tried, he was excluded, and another was called in his 

 stead.* This process was continued until all those who could add 

 nothing to the jury's knowledge of the case were excused, and the 

 requisite number of those possessing such information were found. 

 They were then sworn to render a true verdict, not upon the evidence 

 produced in court, but upon the knowledge they themselves possessed, 

 or upon the words of their fathers.f This explains the seeming 

 anomaly of attaint for a false verdict. Should either party be dis- 

 satisfied with the verdict, he could demand a jury of double the usual 

 number, to try the truthfulness of the former verdict.J This was 

 simply trying the whole panel for perjury because they possessed the 

 requisite knowledge, and had sworn that they would render a true 

 verdict upon that knowledge. 



It often happened that controversies would arise when twelve men 



* Forsyth, " Trial by Jury," p. 105. f Stubbs, " Constitutional History," vol. i, p. 616. 

 X Forsyth, " Trial by Jury," p. 149. 



