inquire into the evidence, and adjourned the case for a fortnight. On the loth of July, 1656, Jan brought into Court the arbitrators' report, but Herr Ciasen still maintained he was not liable, "since the children have not taken or injured anything to the value of a pea's pod," and Jan had already beaten Jacob for the damage he had done, so that lie came home black and
LONDON
blue. Jan Vinje acknowledged that he had struck Jacob at the time, because he could catch no one else. Thereupon the Court de cided that, since Jan punished Jacob, he had lost all his rights, and dismissed his case. So justice was done in New Amsterdam two hundred and fifty years ago, and little Jacob disappeared from the pages of history.
LEGAL LETTER.
April 4, TWO trials, one criminal and the other civil, have excited great interest dur ing the past month and both are illustrative of certain features of English procedure which might possibly be studied with ad vantage by the practitioners at the American bar. In the criminal case one Bennett was tried at the Old Bailey for the murder of his wife. The body of the dead woman was found on the sands at Yarmouth early in the morning of a day in October last. She had been strangled by a bootlace, which was found entwined about her neck. Her identity was not discovered for some weeks, further than that she had come to Yarmouth from London accompanied by a young child, and had taken lodgings in a poor quarter of the seaside town. Ultimately, by means of a laundry mark on her linen, it was learned that she was a Mrs. Bennett, and in conse quence of her husband having been some time engaged to be married to an eligible young woman, and by reason of other in criminatory matters, he was arrested and subsequently indicted for the murder. The evidence was entirely circumstantial, the only undisputed fact being that there was certainly a motive for the crime in the desire of the accused to marry again while his wife was still living. The defence rested mainly on an alibi, which was supported by the evidence of a witness of repute, a merchant of stand
ing in the City of London, who was positive that he had met the accused, who joined him in a walk in the country, and who spent an hour or two in his company, at a place and at a time which absolutely negatived the idea that Bennett could have been in Yarmouth at the time the murder was committed. Not withstanding this remarkable evidence Ben nett was found guilty, and within a fortnight afterwards was hung. The remarkable features in this trial, at least from the standpoint of one observant of American practice in murder trials, are first that there was no voir dire examination of the jurors. The twelve men who entered the jury box were sworn and the trial was im mediately entered upon. This was through no indifference of counsel, for the defence was conducted by an able King's counsel and two juniors, who were familiar with every device and artifice in criminal practice; nor was it because the English law does not admit of the challenging of a juror. On the contrary, in murder cases the accused by statute has the right of twenty peremptory challenges, while the Crown can order jurors to stand aside without reason assigned until the panel is exhausted, when the challenges must be for cause. In this respect the Ben nett case is not unique, as it is only in the rarest instances that the privilege of challenge is ever exercised. This mav be accounted for
