Code  of  Miss.,  604,  art.  156),  enters  the  jury-room,  and  tells  the
jury  that,  '^  imless  they  decide  that  case  one  way  or  the  other,
they  shall  have  notliing  more  to  eat  and  no  more  water  to
drink  I "  Some  of  the  jurors  testify  that  they  thought  that  the
bailiff  said  that  the  judge  said  so.  One  of  the  jurors  also  inter-
rogated him,  and  inquired  if  the  judge  did  say  so  ?  and  even
then  he  did  not  deny  it  Of  course,  it  must  have  been  supposed
ihat  it  came  firom  the  court ;  for  no  jury  would  suppose  for  a
moment  that  any  one  else  but  the  judge  would  attempt  to  en-
force such  measures  upon  them.  Still  less  would  they  suppose
that  an  officer  who  was  discharging  his  duty,  under  the  solem-
mty  of  an  oath^  would  attempt  to  trifle  with  them,  while  delib-
erating upon  an  important  cause,  because,  forsooth,  he  had
become  very  weary  in  waiting  upon  them.    They  thought  that


Sep.,  121.]  Pope  and  Jacobs  v.  State.  1153

the  remark  had  no  influence  upon  their  verdict.  JuBt  here  it
must  be  remembered  that  there  were  only  eight  jurors  present
out  of  twelve,  and  who  tCGtifled  upon  the  motion.  Four  were
abeent.    Who  will  say  that  it  did  not  influence  the  absent  fom*?

But  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  plaintifls  in  error  to  show  that
the  jury  were  influenced.  It  is  sufficient  if  they  might  have
been.
