uct
you to disregard these words of the witness and in arriving at your
verdict not to consider them."

Of all the absurdities that happen in court, the jurymen think that is
the worst. Does the judge or the lawyer believe for a moment that
because they say so the jury are going to forget what the witness
said, especially when it was the very thing they wanted to find out?
They watch the stenographer and they notice he does not even take the
trouble to cross it out of the notebook.

Occasionally a juryman becomes particularly interested and wants to
question something. Usually he is too self-conscious to run the risk
of being snubbed, but sometimes he is bolder and ventures a question.

"Why," asks the juryman, "didn't the defendant give back the goods if
they were not what she wanted?" Both lawyers are on their feet. There
is a mute appeal to the court; both sides are afraid to object to the
question for they think the juryman may have a prejudice if he were
stopped. The judge usually comes to the rescue and tells the juryman
that he is sorry, but that his question is manifestly improper in
form. The evidence should be whether the defendant did a certain thing
or did not do it. The reason why he did it is not in point. After two
or three attempts of this kind the juryman subsides and sits patiently
through the trial without any suggestion. He thinks that there is a
hopelessly complicated game being played before him and he does not
attempt to interfere.

There may be some truth in the theory of the attorney who says:

"Always look out for the juryman who asks your witness questions. He
is against you. If he absolutely believed the witness he would let it
pass without questioning." This reasoning may be used as an argument
either way, for if the juryman believes the witness he may feel that
he should like to have him tell more. Or if he does not accept him as
truthful, he thinks it will not be worth while to ask him other
questions. An inference may be drawn as to the juror's attitude for
and against.

An inexplicable thing to the jury is when the judge takes the case
away from them and directs a verdict or dismissal of the complaint.
That the jury should be compelled to listen to all that mass of
testimony and then at the end not have a chance to decide is
unreasonable. If the plaintiff did not have a case, why did the judge
let them go on? He should have found it out earlier instead of wasting
all that time.