Trial by Jury in Old Times.

By Thomas Frost.

WHEN we congratulate ourselves, sida aan ugu habboonnahay inaan sameyno, muddada nidaamka maxkamadaynta ee xeerbeegtida lagu aasaasay England, iyo ilaalinta ay ka hortagayso isku dayga lagu adkeynayo sharciga eexda eedaysanaha, waxaan inta badan aan ka warqabin xaqiiqda ah in hay'ad aysan had iyo jeer caddayn badbaadada marka maxkamadda, ku dhaqma hoos saamaynta Crown, isku dayay in lagu xukumo. Waxay ahayd badhkii dambe ee qarnigii lix iyo tobnaad markii xeerbeegtiyadu bilaabeen inay caddeeyaan go'aankaas inaanay u hoggaansamin xukunkooda rabitaanka kuwa madaxda sare haya., kaas oo sii kobcay koorsadii todoba iyo tobnaad. Sawir xiiso leh oo ku saabsan ruuxii hore ee garsoorayaasha, iyo ruuxa cusub ee xeerbeegtida, waxaa bixiyay maxkamadaynta Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, gudaha 1554, on a charge of high treason, in conspiring the death or deposition of the Queen, and the seizure by force of arms of the Tower of London. The prosecution was conducted by Serjeant Stanford and the Attorney-General, Griffin, the former leading; and it is noteworthy that both they and Chief Justice Bromley questioned the prisoner in much the same manner as is still customary in France and Belgium, striving to procure evidence that would convict him out of his own mouth. The endeavour failed, and the only criminating evidence against the prisoner was contained in the alleged confessions of Winter and Crofts, Hay'ada Caafimaadka Aduunka, si kastaba ha ahaatee, were not called as witnesses.

The jury, after several hours’ deliberation, returned a verdict of not guilty, upon which the Lord Chief Justice addressed them in threatening tones, saying, “Remember yourselves better. Have you considered substantially the whole evidence as it was declared and recited? The matter doth touch the Queen’s highness and yourselves also. Take good heed what you do.” The jury were firm, si kastaba ha ahaatee, and the foreman replied to the remonstrance of the bench, “We have found him not guilty, agreeable to all our consciences.” Then the Attorney-General rose, and addressing the court, ayuu yidhi, “An it please you, my lords, forasmuch as it seemeth these men of the jury, which have strangely acquitted the prisoner of his treasons whereof he was indicted, will forthwith depart the court, I pray you for the Queen that they and every one of them may be bound in a recognizance of £500 a-piece, si ay uga jawaabaan arrimahan oo kale sida lagu soo oogi doono magaca boqoradda, mar kasta oo lagu soo oogo ama la waco. Maxkamaddu way dhaaftay xataa codsigan geesinimada leh, waayo waxay runtii xeerbeegtida xabsiga galiyeen! Afar ka mid ah ayaa laga saaray wax yar ka dib, isagoo leh awood akhlaaqeed oo aad u yar oo ka hartay si ay u qirtaan in ay khalad sameeyeen; balse siddeedii hadhay waxa la horkeenay Qolka Xiddigaha oo si xun loola dhaqmay, saddex ayaa lagu xukumay inay bixiyaan ganaax dhan £2,000 midkiiba, kuwa kalena £200 midkiiba.

In xukunka soo socda, kiis saddex qof lagu soo oogay dil, waxayna xeerbeegtidu ku heshay dambiga dilka ah oo kaliya, lid ku ah jihada maxkamadda, the jurors were both fined and bound in recognizances for their future “good behaviour.” A decision of the Lord Chancellor, the two Chief Justices, and the Chief Baron, in the reign of James I., sets forth that when a person is found guilty on indictment, the jury should not be questioned; but when a jury has acquitted a prisoner against what the court holds to be proof of guilt, they may be charged in the Star Chamber, “for their partiality in finding a manifest offender not guilty.” In 1667, we find this view extended to the case of grand juries ignoring a bill on grounds which the court did not consider sufficient. Chief Justice Kelying in that year having fined a grand jury of the County of Somerset, for not finding a true bill against a man accused of murder; laakiin, says the report, “because they were gentlemen of repute in the county, the court spared the fine.” This case, and several others in which the same judge had acted in a similar manner, were brought under the notice of the House of Commons, si kastaba ha ahaatee, and that assembly resolved “that the precedents and practice of fining or imprisoning jurors for verdicts is illegal.”

Notwithstanding this resolution of the House of Commons, William Penn, and another member of the Society of Friends, named Mead, being indicted at the Old Bailey for having, with other persons unknown, unlawfully and tumultuously assembled in Gracechurch Street, in the City of London, the Recorder dealt with the jury in a manner which caused the illegality of fining jurors for their verdicts to be again brought into question. The indictment set forth that Penn, by agreement with and abetment of Mead, did in the open street speak and preach to the persons there assembled, by reason whereof a great concourse of people gathered and remained a long time, in contempt of the King and the law, and to the great terror and disturbance of many of His Majesty’s liege subjects. The trial took place before the Recorder, the Lord Mayor, and the Aldermen; and when witnesses had deposed that Penn had preached, and that Mead was there with him, the Recorder summed up the evidence, and the jury retired to consider their verdict. They were absent a considerable time, Muddo dheer oo ku soo laabtay xukunka in Penn uu "dambiile ku lahaa ka hadalka Gracechurch Street."

“Ma intaas oo dhan?” ayuu weydiiyey Rikoorkii.

"Taasi waa waxa aan ku haysto komishanka,” Ayuu ku jawaabay Horjoogihii.

"Si fiican ayaad u lahaydeen waxba,” ayuu u fiirsaday duubista, Ayuu Maayarku intaa ku daray, “Miyaanay ahayn shir aan sharci ahayn? Waxaad u jeeddaa inuu halkaas kula hadlayay dad buuq badan.

“Rabbiyow,” ayuu ku soo celiyay horjoogaha, "Taasi waa waxa kaliya ee aan ku leeyahay komishanka."

"Sharciga England,"ayuu yiri duubiyihii "kuuma ogolaan doono inaad kala tagto ilaa aad ka bixiso xukunkaaga."

“Waxaan ku bixinay xukunkeena,” ayaa ku soo celiyay xeerbeegtida, "wax kale ma siin karno."

“Mudanayaal,” ayuu yiri duubiyihii, “you have not given in your verdict, and you had as good say nothing; therefore go and consider it once more, that we may make an end of this troublesome business.”

The jury then asked for pen, ink, and paper, and the request being complied with, they again retired, returning after a brief interval with their verdict in writing. They found Penn “guilty of speaking or preaching to an assembly met together in Gracechurch Street,” and Mead not guilty.

“Mudanayaal,” ayuu yiri duubiyihii, regarding the jury angrily, “you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict that the court will accept; and you shall be locked up, without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court. We will have a verdict, or you shall starve for it.”

Penn protested against this course, upon which the Recorder ordered the officers of the court to stop his mouth or remove him. The jury not leaving their box, the Recorder again directed them to retire and re-consider their verdict. Penn made a spirited remonstrance. “The agreement of twelve men,” said he, “is a verdict in law, and such a one having been given by the jury, I require the clerk of the peace to record it, as he will answer at his peril. And if the jury bring in another verdict contradictory to this, I affirm they are perjured men in law. You are Englishmen,” he added, turning to the jury, “mind your privilege; give not away your right.” The court then adjourned to the following morning, when the prisoners were brought to the bar, and the jury, who had been locked up all night, were sent for. They were firm of purpose, and through their foreman persisted in their verdict.

“What is this to the purpose?” demanded the Recorder, “I will have a verdict.” Then addressing a juror, named Bushel, whom he had threatened on the previous day, he said, “you are a factious fellow; I will set a mark on you, and whilst I have anything to do in the city, I will have an eye on you.”

Penn again protested against the jury being threatened in this manner, upon which the Lord Mayor ordered that his mouth should be stopped, and that the gaoler should bring fetters and chain him to the floor; but it does not appear that this was done. The jury were again directed to retire and bring in a different verdict, and they withdrew under protest, the foreman saying, “Waxaan ku bixinay xukunkeena, waana la wada raacay; iyo haddaynu mid kale u dhiibno, waxay nagu noqon doontaa xoog si aan nafteena u badbaadino.”

Sida laga soo xigtay sheekada ay qoreen Penn iyo Mead, waxaana lagu soo xigtay Forsyth's "Taariikhda Maxkamadeynta ee Xeerbeegtida,” muuqaalkan ayaa dhacay subaxnimadii Axadda, Maxkamadduna waxay dib u dhigtay maalinta ku xigta, when, haddii aan si qarsoodi ah loo siin cunto, waa inay soomeen ilaa sabtidii. Horjoogaha ayaa xukunkooda ku sheegay qoraal, sidii hore, kuwaas oo ay dhowr jeer magacyadooda ku biiriyeen. karraanigii ayaa helay, balse waxaa diiday inuu akhriyo duubiyihii, yaa rabay inuu waydiisto "xukun togan"

“Taasi waa xukunkeena,” ayuu yiri Horjoogaha. "Waan ku biirnay."

Haddaba dhegayso xukunkaaga,” ayuu yiri karraanigii. “You say that William Penn is not guilty in manner and form as he stands indicted; you say that William Mead is not guilty in manner and form as he stands indicted; and so say you all.”

The jury responded affirmatively, and their names were then called over, and each juror was commanded to give his separate verdict, which they did unanimously.

“I am sorry, gentlemen,” the Recorder then said, “you have followed your own judgments and opinions, rather than the good and wholesome advice which was given you. God keep my life out of your hands! But for this the court fines you forty marks a man, and imprisonment till paid.”

Penn was about to leave the dock, but was prevented from doing so, upon which he said, “I demand my liberty, oo ay siidaayeen xeerbeegtida.”

"Waxaad ku jirtaa ganaaxyadaada,“Maayarka Sayidka ayaa u sheegay maxaabiista.

"Ganaax, maxay?” ayuu dalbaday Penn.

"Maxkamad quursi awgeed,” Ayuu ku jawaabay Duqa Magaalada.

“Waxaan weydiinayaa,” ayuu yiri Penn, "Haddii ay noqoto sida waafaqsan shuruucda aasaasiga ah ee England, in qof kasta oo Ingiriis ah la ganaaxo ama la ciqaabo balse lagu xukumo faciisa ama xeerbeegtida; maadaama ay si cad uga hor imanayso cutubyada afar iyo tobnaad iyo sagaal iyo labaatanaad ee Axdigii waynaa ee Ingiriiska, kuwaas oo leh, ‘Nin xor ah ma aha in lagu dhaariyo dhaarta nimanka wanaagsan oo sharciga ah mooyaane.

“Kaxee isaga,” ayuu ku dhawaaqay duubiyihii.

“Markaa,” ayuu sii raaciyay sheekadu, "Waxay maxaabiista ku soo rareen saldhigga dammaanadda, oo meeshaas waxay uga direen Newgate, for non-payment of their fines; and so were their jury. But the jury were afterwards discharged upon an habeas corpus, returnable in the Common Pleas, where their commitment was adjudged illegal.” Even then, judges appear to have remained unconvinced of the illegality of the practice, or stubborn in their desire to enforce their own views or wishes upon juries; for the question was not regarded as finally settled until the decision in the Court of Common Pleas was clinched, in the same year, by a similar judgment of the Court of King’s Bench.