“Didn’t all them policemen swear that he was as husky as—­”

“Say, you can’t believe a policeman about anything.  It’s their business.  That’s what their job is.  I know all about those fellers.  Why, long time ago when I first come to this country, I told a hundred policeman I was almost starved to death and say, do you think they believed me?  You bet they didn’t.  They told me to get a move on, get the hell out of this, beat it,—­you bet I know all about them fellers.  I—­”

The foreman interrupted Mr. Pushkin.

“So you want to acquit the defendant because his lawyer said he was hungry,—­is that it?”

“I don’t blame nobody for stealing when he is almost starved to death and got a wife and children almost starved to death too because he cannot get a job yet.  You bet I don’t.  I don’t—­”

“Well, of all the damned—­”

“Can you beat this for—­”

“I’ve heard a lot of—­”

The foreman rapped vigorously with an inkwell, splashing the fluid over his fingers and quite a considerable area of table-top.

“Gentlemen!  Gentlemen!  Let us talk this thing over quietly and calmly.  Mr. Pushkin seems to have a wrong conception as to what constitutes evidence.  Now, let me have the floor for a few minutes, and I’ll try to explain to him what constitutes evidence.”

One hour and twenty minutes later Mr. Pushkin admitted that he did have a wrong conception as to what constitutes evidence, but still maintained that he hated like sin to convict a man who had tried so hard to get work and couldn’t.

The non-smoking gentleman was one of the three who comprised the minority.  He was a mild little chap with weak eyes and the sniffles.  By profession he was a clock maker.  He said he believed that the defendant was unquestionably guilty of bigamy and that the State had erred in charging him with burglary.  He was perfectly willing to send the man up for bigamy because, according to the evidence, it took precedence over the crime alleged to have been committed in December, 1919.  In other words, he explained, Smilk had committed bigamy some years prior to the burglary of Mr. Yollop’s apartment and he believed in taking things in their regular order.  Of course, he went on to say, he would be governed by the opinion of the judge if it were possible under the circumstances to obtain it.  He did not think it would be legal to put the burglary charge ahead of the bigamy charge, but if the judge so ordered he would submit, notwithstanding his conviction that it would be unconstitutional.  Several gentlemen wanted to know what the constitution had to do with it, and he, becoming somewhat exasperated, declared that the present jury system is a joke, an absolute joke.

“Well, it’s just such men as you that make it a joke,” growled Juror No. 12.

“Gentlemen!  Gentlemen!” admonished the foreman.  “Let us have no recriminations, please.  It occurs to me that we ought to send a note to the court, asking for instructions on this point.”