270 
THE LATE SHEEP-POISONING CASE. 
In numerous instances, probably in a majority, it may be an 
effectual and satisfactory mode of arriving at the ends of 
justice. In others, however, and of this class we think the 
Burton sheep-poisoning case is an example, this mode of 
trial is unsatisfactory and ineffectual, on account of the diffi¬ 
culty, we might almost say the impossibility, of finding twelve 
jurymen qualified to adjudicate in a matter of so much 
intricacy and delicacy, free from local or personal bias, and 
in other respects competent to ensure impartial justice. In 
an agricultural district, a certain amount of sympathy or 
fellow feeling among the farmers is natural, and the chemical 
intricacies of the question not being understood with refer¬ 
ence to the limits between a safe and a hazardous mode of 
applying a poisonous compound, it was not surprising that 
the prima facie impression should be unfavorable to the 
defendant. Yet it was strange that the very questionable 
mode in which the process was performed was not thrown 
into the scale in mitigation of the damages. On the contrary, 
the chemist against whom no negligence or carelessness is 
proved, is made responsible for the entire loss, while the 
question, “ Would it be possible safely to dip 800 sheep, at 
the rate of three in two minutes?’ 5 remains unanswered. 
The jury were, we presume, impressed with a belief in the 
justice of their verdict, but the question is, were they com¬ 
petent and impartial judges ? It is well known that local pre¬ 
judices and customs are sometimes so inherent in the mind as 
to warp the judgment and make an unbiased decision almost 
an impossibility. For example, an Englishman, being a party to 
a suit in Wales about to be tried by a Welsh jury, would act 
wisely to consent to any compromise rather than go into 
court. By this means he would save the costs of the action. 
Instances also occur where religious or political bias, or party 
spirit, interferes with the operation of trial by jury, which 
thereupon ceases to be in practice what it is in theory. For 
these exceptional cases, and especially where questions of 
delicate chemical or medical science are involved, the inter¬ 
vention of an enlightened scientific tribunal would promote 
the ends of justice. 
<c The reaction in public opinion after the first impulse of 
excitement has subsided, sometimes goes from one extreme 
to the other, and as the general impression changes, it can 
scarcely be supposed that a jury, selected from the public at 
large, could escape the indirect influence of such bias. A 
farmer, having lost eight hundred sheep by a misadventure, 
claims the universal sympathy of his neighbours, whose 
primary desire is that of indemnifying him for his loss, but 
