THE PAYMENT OF JURORS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7726, 20 February 1909, Page 2

THE PAYMENT OF JURORS.

AUCKLAND, February 19. A feeling of strong indignation ■ exists among a number of citizens who have been on the. jury list during the present criminal sessions of tie Auckland Supreme Court regarding the treatment meted out to them. The question involved is chiefly one of principle and is connected with the system of payment of jurors. With the view of arriving at the grounds of the grievance a Herald representative investigated matters to-day. Six of the , dissatisfied jurymen were merely interviewed m a body shortly after being paid off after serving all the week until to-day. The group comprised an accountant, a manufacturing tinsmith, a shopkeeper, a brewer's employee, an engineer and a master plumber. By the way of preface the accountant said: "We have been called every morning this week and every' afternoon, practically serving each day. On top of that some of us have been locked up all one night and followed i about liko malefactors by constables I for five clays. We have received 28s, one or two of us 325. Now. the position is that most of us are dependent upon wages received at per hour for the five days m question. We contend that, having been called each morning i and afternoon^ all our time has been; ■■ taken. The poynt is this: The Government, under its own laws, compels employers, to. pay their men for every hour or portion of an hour- they are engaged, either m work or m going to ana from work, yet m.the payment of, jurors, though the afternoon' may be* lost to them by having to attend the Court at two o'clock, the Government only pays them for half a day. If we are discharged m the morning it is not until 10.30 at the earliest, and we then get notice to be back at 2 p.m. A man can do nothing at his own business between those hours. Then, when -he gets back at 2 p.m. it is half-past before, if challenged or discharged, he is free again. He may then have to go home .to chango, and what chance has he of getting to his own work'! It means, perhaps, losing the whole day, for which the Government decline's to pay. It is not, however, so much the money loss ns the principle of the thing we object to." "Take my own case," continued the indignant accountant, " I have been on ihis jury job this week en Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. I have got a wife and nine children to support, and am entirely dependent Upon what I earn per hour, yet for the services I have rendered to the Government this week I have just received the, ftiunifieent sum of 28s, and I have to keep out of debt oh that." Another member of the party declared that he had lieon oii the jury several times previously and had always received a full day's pay if calledback m the afternoon. "Now, however,'.' he said, " if you do not put m a full four hours m the afternoon you are only paid for the half-day. The point is that we contend that if we have to go back to the Court at 2p.m. we •ought to be paid for the afternoon." The tinsmith put his caso. " In my. trade," he said, "wejiave a day rate scale, and I have got to pay niv men from 8s to lQa per day even if I only employ them for one hour during that day. I have been on the jury all the week up to now and have had to put a man on my bench at 10s per day. I had a delusion that I was going to receive 8s per. day for my services as a juror, but on going just now to be paid off I found I was only getting at the rate of 4s per day. That means that I am 6s out of pocket ior every day I have served." Similar complaints were voiced by other members of the party. On-"all hands there was strong feeling against a principle whereby the Crown treats-------its employees m such a way and compels ordinary employers to'treat their men quite differently. " Why," remarked one of those interviewed, " if employers were to treat their employees as the Government treats its jurors they would immediately be cited before the Arbitration Court like criminals, and fined.