ing him guilty, and after the verdict was so entered,
allowing the jury to be asked if any of them disagreed to
the verdict which had been recorded by the clerk. No juror
expressed his dissent; but by a nod which appeared to be
made by each juror, expressed their unanimous assent. The
innovation is, that instead of permitting the jury to give
their verdict, the Court allows a verdict to be entered for
them, such as it is to be presumed the Court thinks they
ought to render, and then they are asked if any of them
disagree to it; thus making a verdict for them, unless they
are bold enough to stand out against a plain intimation of
the opinion of the Court.

A _venire de novo_ was ordered. The principal difference between
this case and the one under consideration is, that in the latter
the Court directed the clerk to enter the verdict, and in the
former he was allowed to do so, and in the latter the Court
denied liberty to the jurors to dissent from the verdict, and in
the former the Court allowed such dissent.

With what jealous care the right of trial by jury in criminal
cases has been guarded by every English-speaking people from the
days of King John, indeed from the days of King Alfred, is known
to every lawyer and to every intelligent layman, and it does not
seem to me that such a limitation of that right as is presented
by the proceedings in this case, can be reconciled either with
constitutional provisions, with the practice of courts, with
public sentiment on the subject, or with safety in the
administration of justice. How the question would be regarded by
the highest Court of this State may fairly be gathered from its
decision in the case of Cancemi, 18 N. Y., 128, where, on a trial
for murder, one juror, some time after the trial commenced, being
necessarily withdrawn, a stipulation was entered into, signed by
the District Attorney, and by the defendant and his council, to
the effect that the trial should proceed before the remaining
eleven jurors, and that their verdict should have the same effect
as the verdict of a full panel would have. A verdict of guilty
having been rendered by the eleven jurors, was set aside and a
new trial ordered by the Court of Appeals, on the ground t