546 ■ J U 
agree in any reafonable time, they ufually apply to the 
court for fire, candle, and refrefhment, which, with the 
confent of the parties, are generally allowed them. But 
without permiffion, it is deemed criminal to eat or drink, 
although a juryman may have brought refrefhment with 
him in his pocket; nor mud any of the jury hold the 
flighted intercourfe with the plaintiff or defendant, or re¬ 
ceive any written or printed papers from either of them. 
For fuch offences they are judly liable to be committed, 
or fined, and to have their verdift fet afide. 
Should the deliberation lad a confiderable time, the 
judges may adjourn, while the jury are withdrawn to con¬ 
fer; but they mud return and receive the verdict in open 
court. 3 St, Tr. 731. 
On the date-trials for high treafon, at the fedions-houfe 
in the Old Bailey, London, under a fpecial commiffion, in 
*794-, againd Thomas Hardy, Horne Tooke, and feveral 
others, charged with having formed the deftruftive pro¬ 
ject of A Convention of the People, to overthrow the monar¬ 
chy and the conditution, the jury on each prifoner were 
kept together, in the cuftody of the fheriff or his bailiffs, 
night and day, for feveral days fuccedively, during the 
whole of the proceedings on each trial, and till they gave 
their verdicts. The court adjourned from evening till 
morning ; and alfo once in the day for the purpofe of re¬ 
frefhment; and from Saturday evening till Monday morn¬ 
ing, when Saturday intervened. The fheriff was charged 
to fee that no improper communication was had with the 
jury during thefe intervals. And, the fird jury having 
been fent feveral nights to an hotel in Covent Garden, 
at fome didance from the court, a flight fufpicion arifing 
that they were not kept quite free from extraneous infor¬ 
mation, the fubfequent juries were accommodated with 
beds in rooms nearly adjoining the court. 
A culprit was indifted for murder. The jury were 
fworn, and part of the evidence given, but before the 
trial was over, one of the jurymen was taken ill, went out 
of court with the judge’s leave, and prefently after died. 
The judge, doubting whether he could fwear another 
jury, difcharged the eleven, and left the prifoner in gaol. 
The court was moved for a writ of habeas corpus, to bring 
up the prifoner that he might be difcharged, having been 
once put upon his. trial. This being a new cafe, the 
court faid they would advife with the other judges upon 
it; and afterwards they all agreed that the prifoner might 
be tried at the next aflifes, or the judge might have or¬ 
dered a new jury to have been fworn immediately. Mich. 
4 Geo. II. R. v. Gould. 
The verdift in a criminal cafe thus publicly and openly 
given may be either general, Guilty, or Not guilty ; in 
which precife terms alone a general verdift muft be given; 
or fpecial, when it muft fet forth all the circumftances of 
the cafe, and pray the judgment of the court, whether, for 
inftance, on the facts dated, it be murder, manflaughter, 
or no crime at all. This fpecial verdift is where the jury 
doiibt the matter of law, and therefore choofe to leave it 
to the determination of the court; though they have an 
unqueftionable right of determining upon all the circum¬ 
ftances, and finding a general verdift if they think proper 
fo to hazard a breach of their oaths; and, if their verdift 
be notorioufly wrong, they may be punifhed, and the ver¬ 
dict fet afide by attaint at the fuit of the king, but not 
the fuit of the prifoner. a Hal. P. C. 310. 4 Comm. 361. c. 27. 
In general the judges decline, and with great propriety, 
to receive fpecial verdicts, not only becaufe they do not 
decide the point, but becaufe, in giving a partial fpecial 
verdiCt, the juryman does not fulfil the obligation of his 
oath, which is to try and decide the points in iffue. The 
jury are, however, juftified in delivering what verdict 
they pleafe, and the verdict which they perfift in declar¬ 
ing; muft be received by the court; nor can they be de¬ 
tained by the court till they conform to its wiffies, nor 
be fined, or in any way called to account by the court in 
a fummary manner; other wife, it would not be the ver¬ 
dict of the jury, but the verdift of the court, and juries 
R Y. 
would be worfe than ufelefs, by giving countenance to 
arbitrary power. 
Judges fometimes prefume to tell a jury what their ver¬ 
dict muft be, and that it can be nothing elfe. This con¬ 
duct, to fay the lead of it, is indecorous ; and juries 
Should be deaf to fuch peremptory inftruCtions, and de¬ 
cide only on their own views and convictions. If a judge 
Ihould have prefumed to be imperative in his charge, and 
a juryman, notwithftanding, entertains any doubts, thefa 
ought to have at leatt their full weight, becaufe there will 
remain a lurking prepoffelfion in regard to the obferva- 
tions of the judge ; and, if he feels any counterpoife in 
the fear of difobliging the judge, let him look on the pri¬ 
foner at tlie bar, and compare the confluences to the 
unfortunate man with thofe which may arile from difap- 
pointing the court. No confideration of temporary con¬ 
venience, nor any momentary prejudice or feeling, befide* 
the truth, and the intrinfic merits of the cafe, ought to 
influence a verdift which is to decide on the life, fortune, 
or happinefs, of a fellow-being. Phillips, 180. 
It is equally indecorous (fays fir R. Phillips) to en¬ 
quire of juries the ground or reafoning on which they 
found their verdift. They have decided on their oaths 
and confciences ; and, having formally pronounced their 
decifion, they are not bound, or required by law or by 
courtefy, to explain to any one, or to re-difcufs it with 
the judge. If they fliould be told that their verdift is im¬ 
proper, they ought to reply, that it is unconftitutional 
and indecorous to tell them fo. If they are alked on 
what point they found fo and fo, the foreman ought to 
fay, that he is not inftrufted to explain, or that he lup- 
pofes the jury found on various grounds. Judges are dif- 
creet perfons, and they Well know that reprimands or in¬ 
terrogatories of juries in regard to their verdift are highly 
improper. Some judges have prefumed occafionally on 
the timidity or modefty of juries; but, if they dilcover in 
them a fpirit of firrnnefs founded on a knowledge of 
their powers, thefe practices will be far lefs frequent. 
Juries in all cafes fhould behave with refpeft and good 
manners; but they fliould never facrifice the dignity and 
the facred functions of their office to any perfonal consi¬ 
derations. A juryman fliould not for a moment forget 
that he forms part of a jury, and that, for the time, he is 
the guardian for his country of this bulwark of equal juf- 
tice and civil liberty. 
The inftances which formerly happened of fining, im- 
prifoning, or otherwife punilhing, jurors, merely at the 
difcretion of the court, for finding their verdift contrary 
to the direftion of the judge, were arbitrary, unconftitu¬ 
tional, and illegal ; and indeed it would be a moll un¬ 
happy cafe for the judge himfelf, if the prifoner’s fate de¬ 
pended on his directions ; unhappy alfo for the prifoner ; 
for, if the judge’s opinion muft rule the verdift, the trial 
by jury would be ufelefs. See a very curious cafe of this kind 
in Phillips on juries, p. 319 Sc leq. Yet in many inftances 
where, contrary to evidence, the jury have found the pri¬ 
foner guilty, their verdift hath been mercifully fet afide, 
and a new trial granted by the court of king’s bench; for 
in fuch cafe it cannot be fet right by attaint; 1 Lev. 9. 
T. Jones. 163. 10 St. Tr. 416. as the party is found guilty, 
in faft, by twenty-four; 1 Rol. 280. 1 . 2. 7. But the 
court have never interfered even to grant a new trial 
where a prifoner is once acquitted ; however contrary the 
verdift might be to the opinion of the judge, or to what, 
in the eyes of all but the jury, might be deemed the real 
juftice of the cafe. 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 47. §11, 12 ; where 
it is pofitively ftated as fettled, that the court cannot let 
afide a verdift which acquits a defendant of a profecution 
properly criminal. 
The foreman, in delivering the verdift, fliould recoi¬ 
led the feveriffi anxiety of the parties, their friends and 
relations, and fliould take care not to have occafion to 
correft himfelf, but fliould pronounce the verdift with 
folemnity, and in fuch a tone of voice as to be heard 
through the whole court. Nothing is fo disgraceful to a 
jury 
