TRIAL BY JURY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 48, Issue 156, 13 April 1928, Page 6

TRIAL BY JURY

DECIDING CIVIL! ACTIONS. restriction opposed-. p T p« Association) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. At the conference of the legal piofession yesterday a long, but exceedingly interesting, paper was lead j>j Mr Harold Johnston, president of the Wellington Law Society, on 1 The Present Provisions' of the Supreme Court Code Dealing with Junes.” Mr Johnston said that last season s Bill before Parliament asking tor the restoration of the right to a jury in civil cases previously enjoyed seemed to indicate that a certain section of the public was waking up to the tact that a great constitutional change in the administration of justice had been effected bv the Jury Rules made in December,'l924. If acquiescence m the change bv the profession was induced, by the fact that the change was to the advantage of important clients, and .that therefore, whatever their views were -as constitutional lawyers, they should not, in the interests of such clients, object to the change, then he thought that such an attitude was to be deprecated. Mr Johnston went on to detail the important part played by tire jury in civil litigation as well as in criminal cases, and quoted from various authorities, all strongly supporting the jury system. Concluding, he said that English democracy had been kept safe as much by the jury system ns I)V *iny otliGT constitutions! boclv. (Applause.) Mr A. Fair. K.C. (Solicitor-General) moved a vote of -thanks to Mr Johnston for his very brilliant paper, m which all had been keenly interested. The subject had been dealt with in a. way that would open up a discussion that could not help being of the greatest benefit. Mr W. Nicholson (Motueka) seconded, and hoped that the paper would be given the widest possible publicity. The motion was carried by acclamation.

Mr A. C. Middleton (Waimate) remarked that the legal profession was most conservative, and possibly it was because of this tendency that it clung to the jury system. In small centres juries were influenced by local prejudice, sympathy, or some ether such thing. Mr H. H. Cornish (Wellington) moved:— “That this conference respectfully requests the Attorney-General to promote legislation to repeal the Jury Rules of December, 1924.” Mr 31. H. Oram (Palmerston North) seconded. Mr C. G. White (Wellington) moved as an. amendment:— •‘That this matter be discussed this time next year, when the next conference meets.”

He asserted that there was no indication on the order paper that a motion of such a character as that before the conference would be discussed. Mr F. B. Adams (Dunedin) seconded the amendment* He said that preparation and time were necessary to reply /to Mr Johnston’s very able paper. He took an opposite view to that taken •by Mr Johnston. There was no question that the new jury rules were the greatest change in procedure that the present generation had seen. He agreed that the jury system was fundamental to our jurisprudence. In criminal cases there could be no question that the maintenance of the jury system was required. It was also important as a safeguard against possible inroads of the executive government. In actions for tort the jury should be the tribunal ; the present rules protected litigants in that respect. Personally he did not see why a jury should be needed in contract cases, though some contract _ cases were analogous to equity cases. Mr W. J. Sim opposed the motion, and asserted that the majority of Mr Johnston’s observations were divorced from time and place—they applied to England fifty years ago, and not to New Zealand in 1928. The rules agreed upon by the judges were the result of their experience, and should not be brushed'aside as of no account. The jury system, in many eases, was an instrument of injustice. Generally the jury started off with an inherent prejudice against a party if that party happened to be wealthy. The Mayor of Christchurch, in his remarks at'the civic reception to the delegates, upheld the jury system because it was democratic, hut he had not examined the merits of the jury system. Mr A. T. Donnelly (Christchurch) opposed Mr Sim’s views. He. said he had acted against Mr Sim on certain occasions, and in his opinion the verdict- of the jury had been right. (Laughter.) As the result of the considered views of some of the judges they had this purely artificial restriction of the right of trial by jury. Most of the cases in which miscarriages of justice had been alleged when tried by juries were those cases in the region of tort, hut such cases still remained triable by a jury. Mr W. A. Stout (Invercargill) supported the motion, hut expressed the view that trial by jury of four was unsatisfactory, as it generally meant the ■dominancy pf one man. Mr 31. J. Gresson (Christchurch) •said he thought that the judges were not thy best judges as to whether they were the best judges of fact—legal practitioners of experience were the best judges of that. (Hear, hear.) The discussion was continued by Messrs McCarthy, J. Kennedy (Wellington). McAlister (Invercargill), Hislop (Wellington), E. W. White (Christchurch), and McNab. •_ Hie motion was agreed to m the following form: — “That this conference approves the principle that it is desirable to lei ei t to the former rules as to the trial by jury in civil actions.”