The Jury That Sang for Its Supper
After a heated, near-violent deliberation over an attorney's fee, a sequestered jury finally reached a verdict—but only after singing 'Home, Sweet Home' to calm their nerves.
The case of Fred H. Peterson vs. C. P. Oaas grew so noisy during deliberations last Thursday night that the bailiff and night jailer were forced to threaten them to order to procure quiet. About midnight, the jurymen were engaged in such a windy war of words that it seemed to the watchers outside the room and to the sheriff that the roof of the courthouse would be blown off. After the warning, they quieted somewhat and eased their spirits by singing 'Home, Sweet Home.' The effect of the song seemed to have been salutary, for a verdict was reached in the course of an hour. The reason for the racket, which at times promised to develop into a fist-town fight, is to be found in the refusal of one of the jurymen to pay the attorney, who, it seems, 'got even' for testimony given in a case two or three years ago. Peterson sued for $150 attorney fee in the case in which he secured judgment for Oaas against the city, but the successful litigant denied even having employed an attorney and refused to pay the fee or any part of it. The jury was on the first ballot in favor of allowing the full amount, but the opposition was too strong and hammered the amount down to $77.50.
“The jurymen were engaged in such a windy war of words that it seemed to the watchers outside the room and to the sheriff that the roof of the courthouse would be blown off.”
Jury sequestration is a rare and intense legal relic today, but the underlying tension of a 'windy war of words' remains a universal human experience. It is a reminder that even in the solemn halls of justice, the personal grudges and petty disputes of the litigants can turn a civic duty into a chaotic, musical standoff.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.