Marlborough Express. Published Every Evening. THURSDAY, DECEMBER, 19, 1889. THE JURY SYSTEM.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXV, Issue 288, 19 December 1889, Page 2

Marlborough Express. Published Every Evening. THURSDAY, DECEMBER, 19, 1889. THE JURY SYSTEM.

♦ Dueing the progress of a recent ease here, the British public had an opportunity afforded them of seeing m a ridiculous light, one of the institutions which they hold m veneration, viz : the jury system. We tire of our best friends when they appear ridiculous. "It is ridicule that kills" is a truism, and the public are getting a little, let us say, enivuye of the jury system. The soundness of the theory on which it rests, and of the principle of trial by jury is unquestioned to-day, just as it has always been ; but like the virtues of our grandfathers and grandmothers, it is now m the limbo of tradition. We have not time m an age of telephony, stenography, type-writers, circular saws, and trapid sausage machines, to bother with these; — expediency is now perforce the guide. And when the carrying out of a sound principle involves cumbrous machinery, troublesome working and general creakage, expediency suggests that a certain amount of principle and theory should be " jettisoned," and a, short cut taken to the end of a casei In short a most absurd! position may • occur, and it did actually occur during the present session of the Supreme Court. Of course our remarks are not suggested by any merits or demerits of the case per se. With the case, itself we have nothing whatever to do. This is what occurred.;. A. sued 8., and the ease was heard by the Judge and a special jury. When, during the hearing of the case, some technical points arose and evoked discussion, the learned Judge remarked that the 'matter could go to the jury, and if their verdict was m favor of A., B. could have it set aside afterwards, on motion. This is the old conflict between law and fact. .The jury find a certain verdict on the facts of the case — and the Court, on the law points, reverses that finding, or makes it futile. When such glaringly absurd positions can occur; what is the use of the jury system ? When matters of law over-ride matters of ■fact, it is clear that only legal experts are '< qualified to try the issues. The facts being admitted, as m effect most of them were m the case m question, why should the time of citizens be taken up, and they be kept dancing attendance on the Court, merely to return useless verdicts ? If the system were modified and the Bench numerically strengthened, the public would be better served and better satisfied.