Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1879.

Evening Post, Volume XVII, Issue 314, 8 January 1879, Page 2

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1879.

Starve them into concord! That seems to be the rule with juries on criminal trials. It is true that juries sometimes contain among them an individual who beloDgs to what is termed the " pig-headed " class of mankind. He is not clever as a rule ; he is simply obstinate, and prides himself on sticking to his first opinion, no matter how often his fellow-jurors may prove that opinion to be erroneous. It matter* not to him ; his minds' made up, and he will not stir an inch or yield to the others, reason they never so wisely. There is a story told of a juror in the old Sydney days, who had made it a principle in his life never to find a woman guilty. He was not, according to the story, by any means a refined man, but he was rich; and, although his antecedents did not permit of his being on the Grand Jury list, still he was frequently on the panel of the jury of trial, and no prisoner ever thought of challenging' him. One day he sat as a juror in the trial of a woman who was charged with a crime, the evidence of guilt being as clear as day. The jury retired. On entering the room this juror said, with something of theological embellishment, "My minds' made up : not guilty." in vain the rest of the twelve remonstrated; in vain they referred to the undoubted proof of guilt. He would not yield, but, smiiiog grimly, took a pull at a flask of rum, ate a comfortable beef sandwich, lit his pipe, and by and by prepared himself to sleep the night away. It was late and dart ; the eleven were hungry ; a few hours passed woarily away ; l?ght was j denied them ; tha mercy for their own stomachs induced a sort of mercy for the prisoner; the twelfth man was obdurate, and his " fair round belly " was with sandwich, lined. They all yielded, to the aafoniihmsnt of the Court,

bringing in a verdict of " not guilty." thus giving up their convictions to the force of hunger and the obstinacy of one man, with a full stomach, and who, with stronger emphasis, afterwards «aid, " Hang it, I licked the lot; I knew I would !"

Things are changed now ; fire and Kght are, in these dsy«, no longer refused to jnries after their seclusion to consider their verdict; and In New Zealand the Juries Act of last cession of Parliament has, by adopting a portion of the Scotch law, secured for the jury of trial an admixture of both the classes who, as a role, hitherto formed a distinct special or grand jury and the petit jury. The jury of trial is now composed of both classes, and this ought to prove of advantage to the due weighing and proper appreciation of the evidence. The locking: up of juries ha* been very materially altered ; the duration of their seclusion, in case of difference of opinion, is now limited, as compared with the former system ; but they are still liable to be immured for a whole night, and long after it has been shown, as it was in the case of Swbtb last night, tkxt there was not the least probability of their agreeing. When this is patent and made plain to the Court what good can result from any longer locking up a dozen men?

The Chief Justice was pr.rfect'y right, yesterday, in remitting the fino of £10 which he bad, for non-attendance as jurynan, inflicted the previous day on William Henri Pascoe, a brewer, who was summoned by the name of Joseph Henri Pascoe, and who, it was shown, had a brother also a brewer, whose baptismal names were " Joseph Thomis." It was alleged on the first day that tbe absent roan was the *' only Pascoe," and on this allegation the Judge inflicted the fine. This was apparently sound but really loose evidence, sbowing, first, how much is in a name, and how necessary it is that any procedure which originates in a court of law, and which infers punishment by fine, or imprisonment, or both, for tbat dreadful aud undefined thing " contempt of court," should be strictly in form, in designation, residence, and general description. Suppose Mr- Pascoe had been contumacious, bad declined to appear at all, and had resisted the efforts of the policeman who may have been sent to apprehend him, that he had ultimately been apprehended, and it was afterward proved that in consequence of this informal and improper designation he was not legally summoned, and could not be compelled to attend Court, who would be responsible for the false imprisonment — the Judge, or the Registrar, or both 1 However, tfee fine was remitted, and greater accuracy in his nomenclature is recommended to the officer who makes up the jury list. It is a curious fact that while Mr. Pascoe was, in the first instance, fined for declining to answer to the name o£ " Joseph Henri," which first name was that of his brother, and the person whose name was " Edward Washington Qibbs," but who was summoned as "Edward William Gibbs," was allowed to depart scatheless and free.

It will be remembered tbat a resolution was passed by the City Council at the last meeting, on the motion of Dr. Diver, that a loan of £100,000 be raised, to be expended in forming and repairing the streets and footpaths in this city. That resolution in due course was submitted to the City Solicitor for his advice as to the proper mode of carrying it into effect. Mr. Travers, however, advises tke Council tbat in bis opinion tbe proposed loan cannot be raised under the 139 th section of the Municipal Corporations Act, which refers only to loans for works to promote the " convenience and health" of the citizens, or for purposes of public instruction. He holds that street formation does not come under these categories, but is specially provided for in other clauses of the Act to be done out of current revenue. It is true that street formation is eminently calculated to promote the convenience ot the citizens, but in tbe clause of the Act "convenience" is rigidly coupled with "health," and only by great straining of language could the " health " ana " instruction " be held to be promoted by the construction or repairing of streets, so directly as to come within the meaning of the Act. Such at least is Mr. Travers' opinion, but at the request of the Public Works Committee he has prepared a case for submission to the Attorney-General, the point being whether the 139 th clause of the Act can be held to apply to such works as street formation.