MODIFICATIONS OF THE JURY SYSTEM 217 



It should still further be added that these cases are not civil cases 

 alone; the number includes the criminal cases as well. It is true that 

 the disagreements of the jury are much more common in cases where a 

 person is charged with crime than in civil cases where the action of the 

 jury is not such as to deprive anyone of life or liberty. This is why 

 jurors decide the cases submitted to them very quickly when nothing 

 but the question of property is concerned. It is not in the cases that 

 are concerned with the determination of line fence troubles that the 

 jurors are kept out all night in the jury room. Only cases that are 

 concerned with the lives and liberties of persons are sufficient to do that. 



Such being the case, it is clear that the abolition of the unit rule 

 will not tend greatly to diminish the number of disagreements in civil 

 cases. This proves that there are other reforms in the judicial system 

 that are more urgently demanded than the abolition of the unit jury 

 rule in civil actions. 



The best results of the jury system are sometimes lost by the death 

 or disability of one of the jurors. The general rule in such cases is 

 to summon a new jury and have the entire case commenced again at 

 the beginning. This is a serious defect in the judicial system. In 

 important cases it is frequently difficult to get a jury. In one case in 

 the City of New York, weeks were consumed in getting a jury and when 

 the evidence was all in and the jurors were deliberating upon their 

 verdict one became insane. Experts on insanity were called to examine 

 him and testify as to his competency to render a verdict. The result 

 was the usual one when experts are employed. The experts failed to 

 agree. In another case, a criminal case in the same city, one of the 

 jurors became ill just as the evidence was being summed up. The 

 result was a new trial. This cost the City of New York thousands 

 of dollars, and occupied the attention of the court for many weeks. In 

 another case one of the jurors died while waiting to render a verdict. 

 The only thing that can be done in such cases is to begin at the begin- 

 ning and have a new trial. 



In civil cases this difficulty can be avoided if counsel are willing to 

 go on with less than twelve jurors. In a criminal case, however, this 

 cannot be done without express authority in the constitution. The 



