JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 7 August 1926, Page 5

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

COOMMENTS BY MEMBERS

(BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Aug. G. On the vote for the Department of Justice, £138,796, in the- House of Representatives to-night Air. H. G. R. Mason (Eden) criticised the new rules of procedure in the Supreme Court, the effect of which was practically- to abolish juries in certain classes of cases , which differed only- slightly from other classes of cases. The judges themselves seemed to have varying views on the subject. Air. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) inquired on what system justices of the peace were called to preside over courts. He said he had not seen one case of a labour mail, having been appointed to a Commission of the Peace, being asked to take his place on the bench. Air. P. Fraser asked liow a change in the rules came to be made without Parliament or the Law Society having been consulted. Air. Savage asked liojv the jury lists were compiled. Did politics play any part in the matter? If so, he felt that the dice would be loaded against a prisoner. Air. J. A. Lee commented on the fact that a special jury was empanelled in a political libel case in Auckland. He urged that there was a danger in such cases of a jury being composed of men suffering from political bias. The Minister, replying, said the question of a. special or common jury being empannelled was a. matter for the court to determine. Regarding the jury list, all men were liable to solve with certain exemptions. Referring to tlie- Supreme Court rules of proved .ire, these were changed from time to time by judges in conformity ~r- ith the needs of the varying circumstances. This had been the- practice ever since the Act operated and during the past forty years. The Alinister said lie had heard, no complaint before as to Justice of the Peace taking court work. A rota of duty was not i vact-icaole- as tlie authorities never knew be rare hand vvben J.’sP. would be require;!, ihe refore those living convenient to the cou’t were called upon- 1 fere certainly was no discrimination against iatou’ -appointees. The Jaw m regard to special juries was the same to-day as in 1898. The department could not sit in judgment on the court in this matter.