THE H.B. TRIBUNE. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1911. TRIAL BY JURY.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 294, 2 December 1911, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1911. TRIAL BY JURY.

’ CnXTXuVKKsv has ra;f'<i for many a b tig jtar around ti;e merits or demerits of our judicial system of trial by jury. It lias been the proud boast that umlei* British justice every ac- < a «■ 1 u;.i:> has t inalienable right to 1"* trird by hi., piers. Bui the vagartes of juries a id the frequent glaring incongruity of their associa tion with the trained judicial minds of tin- jmiirqs justifies in no small measure the critter sin which so i'.eartily romk-mns the claim of tin jury to uiility in the rmh-btricry <.f jii-ti'e. The OH-OH dlltv calls him t" law coui-i- cannot fail !«• obseive that in many eases. i:ide< (1. tin* juries impanelled are unfitted for H>e important task aliotlc'! to tin :*i. Moreover the M*;;irt i.-rayir nnhrsitat irm’y <r> <6 ■> ~I ;. - ;<> p.*. k a jury with tl < stupi'L >l in' ll possilih* when :t may aril* tin* rmrpose of hi - client, tha! sr.->rehinc an intellectual inquire of made into t.h>* indictment. |t* e’.*r >•(» :m o*i per > r.t b:>*.

I C r. pulio't ite|u-i:<i: upon ! ti 1' 1 r 'J r UI r 10i il. TliC ft 1 IS, 110 W I - Vl' F. • ■it i-.x'-i i>: ten, ami that is in divorce :•. . In bucii vases it ap- ■ .. . H • -Edge has 'iiscrel i'lim n i. ■ i • u:> : . regard to accepting tini j;:;’.':- rnliit. A:i il; u -1 rat. io;i i-f ■this i» afforded in a recent -A tick- . a-t . A man tuoct etieil agaiti't iii-i wire for misconduct. The de- ., ■ • . . • ■, -11 i evidence di'Miur th- aileg.-itions of adulteryl.tit contended. O) that all arts cornTip to till’ tittle pet it tone:.- left j ; ; : , j:-.rut I 1 I>t <‘,l i oiid>Hl« d, .’Hid (V; that ' ■ ion !>y petitioner Illdii.-.'d anil coni rilr.ltcd to the < fn me .. < nniplaincd of. Tin- jury fi.iiti'l that adultery had c.,m II • ■: f«■: r. and ■<je<ted I tie <-•-n t ent ion t'! . • t -oar i ’s r etdi <-i had eon t.-lcited to the wrongdoing. The ri ( leit-r rai-e.l the p.cnt tint the .Jiuiite was not hound by the verdict ■ the jury, and after argutiii-nt Ills H‘ 'i i 1 ‘ 'fi i-TcX tiiat pett- ; t iiiiit', '< condue' in leaving a wife «s>h ten children unprovided for. to _ , if. • -i raise to return ; and live on Isis wife's property. knowing tl-.i' misconduct had occurred. nr:d Liter on to Icnve the family lif stitiite and negb ct his dures for >■ ven i ears. L.ld tonduced to adulter v. and it was not in tiie ptibhc .■it.si : t<> grant <i : \orce under such <■: ■ii:er-. His Honor further t ■ id that pevver :<> refuse petitions to.- ar< uii.l < ’ rentribiit iiur io adtikery was <-,f a <i j«c.-et i on ary ch.ir;s .'.si t' e J’idge vv.i-. rmt nece* .. i o. : i::". •a livocim ct the ! •. „ V IX " < ' 1 1 I ’ I d. k t 1 I, ’'A 1 "s. ti : i ) t "1 X t ♦ ■ E! I- ■ ■ - • .1 ■■ - "" ?'■■■■■ X ■■■ I b e - :i ’■* . i 1 ihp !' ■ mI-i- '.*■ u.i" t I ; P ♦ n ‘ ’ F i-1 ■' ) V.. *! f ■- ;. i ♦ -1 ■ ■: ■ * “ U i; i T h j s ■! ■; ■ : ■ i it i; : ;. , ; b ‘ » '■ i' !*■*' i * 1 i ;t ■ ’:. I’ e t’> . , r d k II i t 'lb; - lilh'pj - ■ > d !*■'■■■ ' " - lie I « i , " ' ■ - ti !■ : I J«X s ’ * t-« ’ -if . i-n.il.y 11: i ■ pou:! In I" cis - ,

I t erinitK d. The decree was refused. ! and petitioner ordered to pay his v He s (.o-ts. co-respondent to pay his : own.” The above case is not quoted ’ with tlie object of contending that I either the Judge or the jury was I wrong in their respective findings. | but to illustrate the fact tha a Judge ■ in one ease may refuse to accept a i verdict and yet is bound to do so Tn ! another. In this case the Judge

j pretty plainly told tiie jury they I were incompetent to form a proper I opinion, and gave his own verdict in defiance of their finding. Had the case been one in which a man was i charged with an indictable offence ; His Honor could not have used his : dmcri tion. Any incompetent jury ! is apparently good enough to try a j man for his life, or lor an offence I which means his utter and complete i social ruin or long term of iinprisonI ment. but in the ease ol divorce pro- ! reedings it is thought necessary io ’ provide the check of the Judge's I trained reasoning. A'hy the differ- < nee ! Surely when a man is being ) t ri( <1 for his life it is more necessary , t<> see that no mistakes are made j than in the case of disrupted marital ( happiness. There is, of course', this about tiie question, that in the great i majority of cases the jury is a good i thing for the accused. Juries are I always loth to convict a man if it | can be made plain to them that his | griih is doubtful. But it must be i remembered the coirrt is there to I deal out stern justice and not to be swayed this way or that l>y the ■ promptings of a good-natured lenij emy. The men who are selected to t fulfil the grave responsibilities of ! Judges are supposed to possess the I best judicial minds the country can produce. I.<mg years of practice j have made them experts in erimin- ; ology and authorities upon the law. I Where, therefore, comes in the ad- ' vantage of selecting a jury of callow j untrained men to sift, weigh, ana- [ lyse evidence and judge facts when they are totally incompetent to discharge tiie responsibility placed upon them. We do not wish to imply that all jurymen, are necessarily fools, or that in the majority of | cases their verdicts fly in the face I of sense and justice, but: there does | appear grave reason to think they i have a very shadowy utility in assist- | ing the learned Judge in the per- ; forinanee of Ids duties. Further, if ; a Judge has the power to set aside • one class of verdict, why not others !